Al Gore Schooled by Mayor of an Eroding Island

Tangier Island, Virginia

Tangier Island, Virginia. By Seriousresearcher13Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

h/t Eric Simpson – Al Gore was left floundering when his claims of sea level rise in Chesapeake Bay were challenged by someone who lives there.

Al Gore Schooled on Climate Change By the Mayor of an Eroding Virginia Island

Nick Kangadis, @TruthOfChicago
August. 2. 2017

Mayor James Eskridge, of Tangier Island, Va., was one of the lucky audience members that got to ask Gore a question — one Gore was not prepared to answer.

Here’s what Eskridge had to say:

“I’m a commercial crabber, and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for 50-plus years. And I have a crab house business out on the water. And water level is the same it was when the place was built in 1970. I’m not a scientist but I’m a keen observer, and if sea level rise is occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it? Our island is disappearing, but it’s because of erosion and not because of sea level rising, unless we get a seawall, we will lose our island. But, back to the question, why am I not seeing signs of the sea level rising?”

The video of the exchange is below;

Mayor Eskridge has clearly intensively studied the problem – his home is threatened by erosion. He stated that Tangier Island has a maximum elevation of around 4ft, so any significant sea level rise would be very noticeable. Mayor Eskridge knows what is causing the erosion. The cause of the erosion is not changes to sea level.

Mayor Eskridge wants a sea wall to protect his island, not pointless waffle about climate change.

My favourite Al Gore quote – trying to respond to Mayor Eskridge’s insistence that the sea is not rising around Tangier Island.

One of the challenges of this issue is taking what the scientists say and translating it into terms which are believable to people where they can see the consequences in their own lives and I get that and I try every day to figure out ways to do that.

Advertisements

265 thoughts on “Al Gore Schooled by Mayor of an Eroding Island

  1. So Al Gore got this poor shmuck to admit that IF the sea level were to rise by two feet his island would be toast, without Al Gore having to answer his question about there being NO sea rise there in 50 years. Clever as a bucket of monkeys, aint he?

    • What Gore intentionally never talks about is the difference between Absolute Sea level and Relative Sea level. And no one calls him on it.

      Where I live the ocean has risen about 6 inches over the past century, but there are areas where sea level has actually fallen leaving raised beaches. In reality the sea hasn’t fallen, it’s the land that has risen in these locations. The explanation is post glacial rebound.

      Much of what people perceive as ocean rise, or lack thereof, are actually changes in the land from which they perceive them.

      Gore knows this but remains silent about it.

  2. I had a one-word response to algor’s response but I don’t think it would have got past the mods.

  3. He has a house. He’s been there for 45 years, the sea isn’t rising.
    Guess he’s just an idiot.
    Not sure why anyone is surprised that these islands erode.

    • Unstated, but common knowledge to anyone who has boated or fished near Tangiers Island are the parade of tankers and cargo ships heading up and down river.

      The wake these boats generate is substantial. Storms may exacerbate erosion, but it is the constant ship wave action doing the most damage.

    • I think part of the reason people are suprised by the erosion of these islands is a lack of understanding of just how young the Chesapeake bay actually is. Just 18k years ago the Atlantic shoreline was many miles east of Norfolk and the present Chesapeake bay was the broad valley of the Susquehanna River.

      • In geological terms the Chesapeake is a very young water body. Many people just think of it as part of the Atlantic when it really isn’t.

      • That’s interesting. I could look it up but can you explain how this is occurring? Was the land sinking, the sea rising, the valley eroding away, a combination? If this started so recently in geological terms, it seems it could still be happening, but in ‘anthropogenic’ terms this started ages ago and even if the apparent sea level were rising in the Chesapeake, it would seem to odd to just assume it was caused by AGW.

        Incidentally, has anyone ever heard a person warning of the dangers of AGW correct a laymen who thinks the rising sea level is quickly encroaching on his shoreline property by telling him, e.g.: “Yes, the sea level is rising but not that fast — what you are seeing is shoreline erosion from other causes.”? I don’t think I have ever seen simple honesty like that from the likes of Mr. Gore.

  4. Al Gore is long gone and the mostly forgotten ‘has been’.
    It appears to me that the rising swarm of waspish ‘coastal liberals’ acting as the agitators of the looming political crisis may eventually succeed by smashing the front door in order to get grab back what they lost the last November.

  5. If the idiot Gore understood anything about sea levels, that is not the same everywhere (different at each end of the Panama Canal) and affected by amongst others, the curvature of the earth, centrifugal force as the planet spins, and local geological events, he could have given this guy a reasonable answer.

    Not that I’m an expert, I read some of Judith Curry’s information and watched her video’s to learn this.

    Perhaps Gore ought to do some reading of his own instead of just making all this crap up.

    • Gore, who failed out of divinity school, is not that smart.

      Really, he’s a bit slow. As far as him being the leading preacher on climate change he’s got his simple (read .. simplistic) talking points, and he sticks to them. But if someone throws an unexpected curve at him he is not able to respond effectively, as all he can do is dumbly regurgitate his set talking points. I think an Artificially Intelligent bot will soon have the ability to be more competent than Gore as the left’s spiritual leader on AGW.

      And thanks Eric for the h/t!

  6. Not an expert on this but did a quick Google search. Is it possible this Yale University article offers a potential answer to Mayor Eskridge’s question? The summary reads, “As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.
    Source: ‘The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region’ http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region

    • The biggest issue is that sea level rise is on the same order of magnitude as tectonic movement. The high north is generally still rising out of the sea due to the loss of mass from the end of the ice age. Prevailing winds and currents might have some effects as well, but I doubt it will be significant in comparison to shifting landmasses. After all, these effects are already distributing water around the globe.

      However, the estimate about 3-6 feet is baloney. That would require acceleration at an order of magnitude greater than has been observed.

    • No. The island and crab house in question are not only in the same region but basically local to each other.

    • What is obvious from this result is that they are unable to actually measure sea level.

      Which is why NOAA and CU use models and glacial-isostatic adjustments to “grow” sea level.

      A man who works inches above the water for forty years in all conditions, states that he is unable to see sea level increase; Al Gorebull and his absurd religious advocates should pay attention.

    • Are you really that silly or did you work on it. The variations are “fixed” locally but subject to global effects thus one inch there will equal one inch here, on top of the local variation.

    • Oliver’s Yale.edu article states:

      “The extra gravitational attraction of an undersea mountain range pulls water toward it, creating a literal, permanent bump on the surface of the sea, while the deficit of gravity near an undersea valley creates a depression in the water up above.”

      Sounds like antigravity to me. Why would an undersea mountain pulling the water above it towards itself cause a bulge at the surface instead of a depression? Wouldn’t that mean that the south polar ice cap would cause a depression in the surrounding ocean? But the author says the opposite in that case. Maybe this antigravity effect is real but it makes me a bit skeptical about the rest of the article that the author would let something so counter-intuitive pass without explanation.

      Or, maybe Mr. Lemonick a member of the Don’t-worry-they’ll-believe-anything Society.

  7. OK, so we all make mistakes. Is Al Gore supposed to be 100% correct the whole time? Is, for example, Donald Trump always 100% accurate in his statements – I don’t think so. Come off it – attacking Gore is no different to attacking Trump. Climate change should be a bi-partisan issue focusing on what the global community is saying on this issue instead of just focusing on individuals. Let’s stop playing one upmanship here – it just descends into a childish “we’re better than you” scenario…

    • ‘attacking Gore is no different to attacking Trump’

      What gor wants will put the middle-class world-wide into poverty while he and his become the new Feudal landlords.

      What Trump wants will put millions of people to work.

      I’d say there were MAJOR differences.

      Same with climate change.

      • …Why did so many nations sign up to the IPCC Paris Agreement if this is all a hoax?…

        The fact that you referred to it as the “IPCC Paris Agreement” suggests you have lots of catching up to to. Reminds me of the guy in the obscure movie “Barcelona” referring to the AFL-CIA.

      • Yup, trump’s “plan” will put people to work. At minimum wage, building a wall to keep out Mexican people. All while doing his damned best to deprive the American people of health insurance… unless they have his kind of wealth to pay the absurd copays.

      • Really? Perhaps you should do an employment search with a couple of the companies who are contracting to build the “wall”. Clearly you will be shocked at their starting wages and benefits packages. As for healthcare, Obamacare has forced millions of people to pay outrageously high premiums for insurance with even more outrageously high co-pays and restrictive coverage for what you can use it for.

    • It’s not the 100% we’re on about it’s the 0% facts and predictions of his that are true , he is just an evangelist preaching for his supper and making a killing scaring the world for no there reason than personal wealth .

      • It is exactly that. I would also point out that he FAILED in his attempt to become a true evangelist and had to invent a religion because he lacked the sufficient mental capacity to learn existing doctrines – demonstrated by the fact that all he really came up with was a simplified version of Genesis painted day-glow green.

    • What a bizarre straw man distraction.
      Imply Al Gore is mostly accurate while degrading Trump.

      When is Al Gore ever correct? When he collects his latest climate extortion payments?

      Al’s latest embarrassment video is a collage of isolated weather events driven at subliminal speeds while Al talks the classic snake oil talk of shysters.

      Al Gore grows richer on the backs of the poor.

      • This is a very candid and short summary of the current situation from an independent Swedish research institute.

        I am British living in Poland. When will Americans like you get it that this is not just an American situation – Al Gore is not just representing a section of American society on this issue. Why did so many nations sign up to the IPCC Paris Agreement if this is all a hoax? Are they all in league together – some sort of giant conspiracy dreamt up on the back of completely false evidence. Why do you just see this as a ‘jobs’ issue – what has it got to do with jobs?

      • It really is fascinating how people cling to any lie that they can use to advance their preferred agenda.

      • Why did so many nations sign up to the IPCC Paris Agreement if this is all a hoax?

        The average person is not that smart or educated and, by definition, half of the people are below average.

      • Ivan. Quite simple. It’s a mix of “they believe”, “they are lying”, and “they are taking advantage of the situation”.

        Out of all the countries in the Paris agreement, only USA, EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia had meaningful reductions and obligations. Russia agreed to essentially nothing, and China and India much less than nothing, promising to triple emissions by mid-century. These and other countries lost nothing by signing but would potentially gain billions or even trillions of dollars in transfers from the wealthy nations.

        Then, Germany, France, and Japan, despite their claims to want to reduce CO2, are furiously building coal power plants while shutting down their nuclear reactor fleet. Germany and Australia have massively invested in renewable energy with results disastrously expensive and shockingly ineffective at actually reducing year-on-year CO2 emissions.

        So everyone’s actions in response to Paris have really convinced me of my position that CO2 reductions are not a serious goal of any planetary government. Besides, read two paragraphs up. By 2050, China and India alone will be emitting more than the entire world does today. CO2-free by 2050 would not be possible even in an infinite-money scenario. Anyone who says that a physical impossibility is your only course of action isn’t an “independent research institute”. They are an idiot.

      • ivankinsman: So many logical fallicies, so little time. Naivete is very difficult to break through and you are either very naive or very cunning. “Everyone else believes” means nothing. Everyone can believe giraffes are blue. It does not make them blue. Truth is not found by voting. Science is not settled by voting. There are many reasons nations go along—money, power, world domination, virtue signaling. Actually believing something is true is not required to push the idea and make money off it. People sell ideas they don’t believe in all the time. Check your email—I’m sure there are dozen offers of “free energy” “cheap drugs” etc. Sellers don’t believe this but they sure hope you’re naive enough to believe. On the other hand, maybe don’t check your email. I don’t want you buying a book on how to collect lightening, store it and power your house for a month.

      • And the parade of ridiculous strawmen continues.

        “ivankinsman August 4, 2017 at 1:54 am
        This is a very candid and short summary of the current situation from an independent Swedish research institute.”

        Candid?
        Independent?

        Both are absurd and false claims.

        Title: Water requirement and use by Jatropha curcas in a semi-arid tropical location
        Article Type: Research Paper
        Keywords: Jatropha curcas; Water requirements; Semi-Arid Tropics; Soil moisture; Biodiesel

        “These findings highlight the need to carefully assess the implications of large Jatrophacurcas plantations on water availability and use under different agroecosystems, particularly so in water scarce regions such as semi-arid and arid regions in the tropics. Suggested Reviewers: Johan Rockstorm Ph.D
        Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute rockstorm@eng.uz.ac.zw
        Expert in biofuels research and policy “

        Activist dependent on the green finding trough. That is known as seriously biased.

        Note the “pal review” reviewer request for some alleged research.

        Is ivanka’s kin seriously deluded or just a blatant liar?

        One thing is sure, if ivanka’s twisted sister is living in Poland, the trollop depends completely on coal power and will be for a long time.

      • ‘Why did so many nations sign up to the IPCC Paris Agreement if this is all a hoax?’

        Wow. So, ‘simply everyone’s doing it’ is valid evidence. Because large groups of people NEVER get together and do anything stupid.

        Geez. If you can’t find any historical precedent for this sort of thing… well, I’d just throw you in that ‘beyond help’ category.

      • It is not “so many nations”. It’s power-crazed warmunists who have wedged themselves into the seats of power with the passive or active connivance of statists who see an opportunity to extend their power regardless of the truth of the issues. There’s your giant conspiracy. Pay attention to the folks around you; the Poles aren’t falling for this. It is no surprise to me; the two smartest people I have ever personally known were of Polish extraction.

    • Al Gore is a charlatan. While I think he came out OK on this exchange, most of the propaganda he spews is a bunch of deceitful nonsense. I just watched a movie with a preview of his new “Truth” film where he tried to validate his prediction of New York flooding from sea level rise using the flooding that occurred after Hurricane Sandy. You’d have to be an idiot not to realize that he wasn’t predicting sporadic flooding due to a freak path taken by a minor hurricane – he was predicting permanent flooding due to more volume of water in the ocean.

      • Look the guy was one of the first politicians around the world to raise this issue and draw attention to it. George Bush and Margaret Thatcher acknowledged it and Barack Obama was the first US President to do something about it. Rather than think about your own life, what do you think it will be like in your grandchildren’s lives? Do you really think CO2 just evaporates into the atmosphere? Gore could have taken some fat cat job but instead he was approached to make An Inconvenient Truth. Do you really think he is making a fortune? Come off it.

      • The world has only warmed 0.7C over the last 150 years, and 90% of that had nothing to do with man.
        There is no evidence that CO2 is a problem. Rather more CO2 is good for life, and a few tenths of a degree warming is marvelous for life.

      • Ivan asks:

        “Gore could have taken some fat cat job but instead he was approached to make An Inconvenient Truth. Do you really think he is making a fortune? Come off it.”

        Uh yes!

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html

        “He also has to thank the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package. The $80 to $90 billion worth of government investment in green energy has helped to grow many of the companies Gore and his renewable energy-based hedge fund Generation Investment Management have put the majority of their money in. In fact, nine of 11 companies that Gore endorsed during a 2008 presentation on fighting climate change received government investment, WaPo reports.”

        If cap and trade schemes are passed by congress, he would be a billionaire.

        “Back in 2009, reports claimed Al Gore’s net worth would eventually make him the first “carbon billionaire,” since Gore was seen as one of the biggest profiteers of the climate change agenda. Besides releasing the 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, the Telegraph noted Gore how “made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories.” The former VP is also known for making $175,000 per speech.

        In addition, Gore lobbied for carbon cap-and-trade legislation, which would have benefited his hedge fund called Generation Investment Management (GIM) that he co-founded in 2004 with David Blood, who used to be the chief of the Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM). Gore testified in a 2007 Joint House hearing of the Energy and Science Committee that “as soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…. There will be unchained investment.””

        http://www.inquisitr.com/4407486/al-gore-net-worth-2017-global-warming-movie-an-inconvenient-sequel-money-house-climate-change/

      • “Gore could have taken some fat cat job but instead he was approached to make An Inconvenient Truth”.

        He did take “some fat cat job”.

        He’s also on the board of Apple. Can’t get anymore fat than that.

        Ivan, before you make such ignorant comments you should really do your homework.

      • ivankinsman: Yes, we know for a FACT he is making a fortune and he never, ever denies it. He buys huge houses, takes money from oil nations, tobacco, and so forth. He never denies his income sources or how monsterous his take on the booty from AGW is. He’s FILTHY RICH and selling climate fear is a big contributor to that wealth.

      • ..Barack Obama was the first US President to do something about it. Rather than think about your own life, what do you think it will be like in your grandchildren’s lives? Do you really think CO2 just evaporates into the atmosphere?…

        Bush made some climate pacts that were every bit as useless and toothless as Obama.

        Grandchildren should be free of societal debts placed on them by politicians, idiots, and egos.

        And no, we don’t think CO2 “evaporates.” What level of science education do you have? Good Lord.

      • “ivanka’s twisted sister August 4, 2017 at 4:54 am
        Look the guy was one of the first politicians around the world to raise this issue and draw attention to it. George Bush and Margaret Thatcher acknowledged it and Barack Obama was the first US President to do something about it. Rather than think about your own life, what do you think it will be like in your grandchildren’s lives? Do you really think CO2 just evaporates into the atmosphere? Gore could have taken some fat cat job but instead he was approached to make An Inconvenient Truth. Do you really think he is making a fortune? Come off it.”

        ivanka’s twisted sister is capricious with it’s falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies.

        ivanka’s twisted sister refers back to the time of President George Bush, senior and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
        But nary a mention regarding how the intervening thirty years have utterly failed to prove CO2 atmospheric influence.

        Those thirty years include literally hundreds of catastrophic CAGW predictions claiming virtually every possible result from extra CO2.
        All those predictions have failed, or is on track to fail.

        One does wonder if that “sippen fool” trollop is back again under a new moniker. Can’t keep away from the finest and most popular Science Blog, ivanka’s twisted sippen?

      • “Rather than think about your own life, what do you think it will be like in your grandchildren’s lives? Do you really think CO2 just evaporates into the atmosphere? ”

        Let me flip this question right back on you. Do you care about the likelihood of your children and grandchildren living in poverty? Do you really think that our society burns fossil fuels because it’s just a fun thing to do? Or are you silly enough to think that an advanced economy can be run on something other than fossil fuels and that the stunning growth in our standard of living since the invention of the internal combustion engine was just a happy coincidence?

        Whatever harm you think would be caused to future generations by burning fossil fuels is dwarfed by the harm to those future generations by NOT burning them. Every incremental use of fossil fuels delivers at least a thousand-fold more in benefits than the theoretical harm from the increase in temperature caused by that incremental use of fossil fuels. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself whether it’s worth it for 500 people to drive their gasoline powered cars to a restaurant over the course of a day, thereby not only feeding themselves but providing the money by which the restaurant owners and employees are able to support themselves, in exchange for adding an amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that, at most, would contribute something on the order of 1×10^(-11) C to temperatures.

        Any significant reduction in burning CO2, sufficient to affect temperatures, would lead to an economic depression that would plunge tens of millions in this country into a state of abject poverty,

        This is the issue I have with environmentalists and other liberals. They think that the world can be governed by nothing more than the best of intentions and a magic wand.

    • The lawyer Gore’s ultimate deception is shown is this 4 minute video:

      The above video shows that Gore and the IPCC have, from the start, knowingly misled the people on CO2 (and the people still believe Gore’s lie [so someone should post this video where it is seen by huge numbers of people]).

      The people believe there is solid evidence that CO2 causes climate warming. In fact there is no evidence for that. None at all. That is irrefutable and the video makes that clear as day. Indeed, the whole warmist theory is a joke, and the fact that we’ve now seen two decades plus of the highest CO2 emissions ever … with zero temperature response … is of course fully consistent with the historical record that shows absolutely no causal connection between CO2 and temperature.

      • ivankinsman. I’m still waiting for the long overdue check from these parties you’re talking about. Where I come from they’ve been charging us without any pity or shame. And from the looks of it, the experience would enrich you spritually.

      • ivankinsman: one of the most insidious lie going around is that denier scientists are paid off– by the Koch brothers, naturally. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the leading skeptics– Christy, Curry, Lindzen, Pielke,Jr., Spencer, Happer, Dyson, etc.– are “paid off.” This, like much of climate science, is speculation and wishful thinking put forward to convince ourselves of the “truth.” If there is real evidence that scientists skeptical of the consensus are paid off, please provide it. Otherwise, it falls under the category of superstition and conspiracy theory with no supporting facts.

      • Wow, I knew that Soro’s lost a lot of money lately but surely he can still afford something better than you….Sheesh !

      • Classic dodge, just declare that any information that doesn’t support your lie is disinformation and is funded by rich evil people.

      • ivankinsman: Belief in conp*racy theories is supposed to be a trait of skeptics, not true believers. And yet, over and over we see the believers doing precisely that—putting forth theories about oil companies, under the table payments, all of which have about as much proof as the CAGW theory. In other words, none.

      • ivankinsman: IIRC, Greenpeace states that ^climate-denying organizations^ (or some equivalent term) receive umpty-million dollars.

        The naive reader concludes (and is intended to conclude) that ALL that money goes to climate denial, because that’s all that a ^climate-denying organization^ would do, right? But less than 10% of it does, because climate skepticism represents only that percentage of these think tanks and foundations’ activities. E.g., the CEI etc. have irons in many fires. The most active on the climate front is Heartland, but only 20% or so of its income goes to climate-related matters.

    • Al Gore’s comment about “translating” scientific findings into everyday experience is interesting ivankinsman. If I wasn’t totally confident Al Gore carefully researches all of his examples, I might take that comment to mean that Al Gore admits he picks random problems which fit his narrative, without properly checking whether global warming is a factor.

      • OK. A lot of commentators here seem to see climate change as some sort of ‘elitist’ shannigans, where the policies that need to be implemented are going to shaft the average working Joe and boost the incomes of the rich (whereas I thought it was Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts that are going to do this).
        This is a very good article on how the average working Joe in the hotter US states is going to get shafted by climate change unless measures are put in place to check rising global temperatures. Al Gore may be a spokesman for climate change by there are thousands out there who are also advocating measures to counteract it:

      • I call BS on the overheating worker nonsense. I used to work in a humid, poorly ventilated chemical factory which frequently reached a sustained 120F inside on hot Summer days. Nobody fainted or suffered heat exhaustion. The factory distributed electrolyte drinks every five minutes – kept us hydrated.

      • Ok. Put a child or an old person in a similar situation and see if they get by on electrolyte drinks. We can all take different views on the impact of global heating but I would prefer to take out insurance now.

      • The NY Times has been peddling fake news for a century or more … they got a Pulitzer for on the scenes reporting that the Holodomor wasn’t happening at the same time up to 10 million people were dying … their coverage fit the narrative they were pushing at the time …

      • ivankinsman. I’m willing to swap places with the loudest proponents. A place in the Arctic circle offered in return. While waiting for answer, here’s what you can expect in the EU:

      • The offer comes with a room called ‘sauna’, which can be heated as follows:

        +140 °C = +284 F. Handy also during the summer to counteract the local climate. In my case +80°C for an hour weekly is enough, but some choose higher temperatures practically daily.

      • I am always amazed that the climate establishment criticises us for quoting from non-peer-reveiwed sources (no doubt justifiably sometimes) but here is ivankinsman expecting us to accept a NYT report without question. Further evidence of the cult status of climate science; we demand absolute proof from you while anything we say is to be taken as gospel.

      • Ivan,
        All the alarmists can point to to justify warming disasters are PROJECTIONS of flawed models. I live in the south, there has not been a measurable increase in temps in South Carolina DURING THE LIFETIME of the young man pictured in the NY Times article.
        The south is no more “sweltering” than it was in William Faulkner’s days.
        This youth’s “agony” is a product of his poor education about physics, chemistry and yes “climate”.
        Scaremongering works.

      • ivankinsman: According to your “logic”, the southern US should have a population of zero, as should all areas within a certain range of the equator. Humans should only be living in mid latitudes where the temperature extremes are more moderate. No humans should be living on islands in the ocean, since many of these are very warm. African should be a ghost continent. You’re basically saying human beings cannot survive in areas they clearly do. That’s not rational. It’s just not. Humans lived for centuries in extreme heat and multiplied and flourished. It’s an historical fact.

      • I looked up trend info for the south eastern US. I was actually wondering what was happening in Columbia, SC, which is the most miserable place I have ever been, with high humidity, hot sunshine, high temperatures, and at times no breeze. What struck me was that the temperature trends in that part of the world went up almost as often as they went down. Odd. So, my thought is that much of the temperature trend is likely caused not by climate, but by other factors. http://dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/Publications/2015TP_Trends/2015Tmax_summer.php The cities that I know have grown appear to have greater increases, although I didn’t look up population growth data to cross check with the temperature trend. It appears that UHI strikes again.

      • “ivanka’s twisted sister insipid sippen fool” August 4, 2017 at 3:03 am
        OK. A lot of commentators here seem to see climate change as some sort of ‘elitist’ shannigans, where the policies that need to be implemented are going to shaft the average working Joe and boost the incomes of the rich (whereas I thought it was Donald Trump’s… blah blah, bs bs, lie lie, etc.”

        What’s the matter? Couldn’t you find a “Southern” news source whining about temperature?

        Not that there is any measurable increases in Southern temperatures that are not in within normal variation.

        Instead, ivanka’s twisted sister repeat the nonsense the New York times dredges from the barrel’s bottom.

        All it is good for are religious believers without knowledge or common sense; they either depend upon green funding or they’re CAGW Kool-Aid swillers.

        Which is why ivanka’s twisted sippen fool spends so much time here at the internets finest and by far, most popular Science Blog.

        It is envy. One of the seven deadly sins; though common elitist internet trollops, both paid fakirs and CAGW believers, likely indulge the other six deadly sins also.
        e.g.
        • pride – condescending, belief in moral superiority, arrogance, etc.
        • greed – desires for money, glory, fame, prestige, speaking fees, etc.
        • lust – lust for power, naked ambitions, civilization rapine, etc.
        • gluttony – There s zero satisfaction with honest research, honest tests, honest projects; their lust for grabbing every bit of funding at the wrecking of economies means nothing to CAGW trollops, politicians and alleged scientists
        • wrath – alarmists by and large are extremely quick to seize beliefs, rumors, assumptions as excuses to flood anger at genuine scientists and science.
        • sloth – They’re just too lazy to fix bad science, to lazy to write real science press releases, much preferring to just use extreme emotion and attempt to instill fear amongst ordinary civilians.

        Just ivanka’s twisted sister and her dubious cohorts’ history of comments provides evidence for most deadly sins.

    • Comparing AlGore to Donald Trump is the ultimate insult to AlGore. Not a fan of either guy but AlGore does have a history of public service. To Trump public service means running his real estate empire from the oval office.

      Has anyone bothered to check slr numbers for this area? I thought subsidence had affected the Chesapeake area more than slr. A quick look shows slr of about 3.5mm per year. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      • Al Gore has a record of public service? Where? All he ever did was use public office to make himself rich.
        The policies that he pushed while in office made people poorer.
        Trump at least provided jobs for 10’s of thousands and created a lot of wealth for millions.
        Do you have any evidence that Trump is still running his business? Or do you just assume that since he’s rich, he must be evil.

      • Don’t have time right now – but there are a number of studies for this area – which document the subsidence. Some of it is the rebound from the last glaciation era and some is from pumping out groundwater. I believe that subsidence here is close to 1/2 of relative SLR. Would have been helpful to the discussion, had the mayor been more informed; to infer that there is no relative SLR there is uncomfortable. Had he lectured [idiot] Gore on the facts – and then stated that there is no acceleration of SLR – per numerous studies, the debate would have been improved.

    • Man caused climate change is a lie, and you are perpetuating that lie just as is Al Gore. And you are proud to be spreading this lie, clearly.

      • Really? You know more about finance than Trump? That means you are a billionaire finance and real estate tycoon. Show us your quarterly earnings.

      • Come on, you claim to be a great financial stuporgenius, dazzle us with your brilliance! Show us how superior you are to Donald Trump.

      • ivankinsman

        Trump got elected president; Al Gore didn’t.

        While you may not like that, enough other voters preferred Trump to the Clinton alternative to make it happen.

      • At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
        Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

        http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

    • AlGore is dead wrong and if he is successful in his campaign it will result in widespread poverty and misery. So it is imperative that right thinking people discredit his narrative.

      As far as Trump is concerned, when he is incorrect about other issues, I see no public reluctance to discredit him.

  8. After viewing that exchange, I don’t think that Gore’s response was all that bad. People who believe sea levels are rising will think Gore’s answer was correct; sea level rise is something that scientists measure, and the fact that a person doesn’t notice it over time can simply be chalked up to how slowly it occurs. People who don’t believe sea levels are rising will take the side of the crabber.

    I think sea level is certainly increasing, and this exchange kind of misses the real points, how much is it rising, what is the error in the measurements, and how much can be attributed to CO2 emissions?

      • The crabber is right: sea level rise is local rather than global. So global politics are worthless.
        http://coastalratepayersunited.co.nz/docs/science/Tide%20gauge%20location-and%20measurement%20of%20SLR.pdf

        “Abstract
        The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negati
        vely) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards).
        We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.
        We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 ±2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States.
        In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”

    • “Kurt August 4, 2017 at 1:26 am
      After viewing that exchange, I don’t think that Gore’s response was all that bad. People who believe sea levels are rising will think Gore’s answer was correct; sea level rise is something that scientists measure, and the fact that a person doesn’t notice it over time can simply be chalked up to how slowly it occurs. People who don’t believe sea levels are rising will take the side of the crabber.

      I think sea level is certainly increasing, and this exchange kind of misses the real points, how much is it rising, what is the error in the measurements, and how much can be attributed to CO2 emissions?”

      Al Gore did not answer the question. The term is blindsided. Gore was not prepared for questions from an observer living on the waterfront.

      NASA’s own sea level charts show a lack of sea level rise since 2015.

      Don’t forget that NASA has already baked in a glacial-isostatic adjustment (GIA).

      To check sea levels without interfering geoid calculations, GIA and tidal gauge adjustments: Use the following interactive sea level and click anywhere away from shorelines.

    • Al Gore’s comment about “translating” scientific findings into everyday experience is interesting ivankinsman. If I wasn’t totally confident Al Gore carefully researches all of his examples, I might take that comment to mean that Al Gore admits he picks random problems which fit his narrative, without properly checking whether global warming is a factor.

    • Kurt,
      The problem with Gore is that he is ” predicting ” sea rises of up to 20 feet by the end of the century, principally caused by collapsing glaciers and land ice melt at Antarctica and Greenland ( “An Inconvenient Truth” -the book of the movie: pages 188-195 and196-209.)
      The UN IPCC AR5 does NOT support this.
      At WG1 Chapter 2 we learn that from ” scenarios” RCP 2.6 moving through RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0 to RCP 8.5 the projections are for sea level rise from 0.26 m. to 0.98m by 2100.
      The UN Chapter discounts the likelihood of Antarctic ice shelf collapsing.” There is medium confidence of sea level rise above the range given”. Even if it were to happen the additional rise would be a few tenths of a metre extra.
      Gore is again disingenuous on this issue.

      • You are really sold on NOAA’s complex Geoid calculations, glacial-isostatic adjustments, models and whatever else they throw in to get the sea level to rise.

        Here is CU’s interactive SLR interactive showing the sea levels in the Chesapeake, away from shore.

        Looks to be without meaningful trend. Certainly not accelerating or looking like a hockeystick.

    • “Kurt August 4, 2017 at 1:26 am”

      The talk of no change in 50 years? How about tide gauges along the south coast of Eng;and that have been there for HUNDREDS of years. Emsworth, Portsmouth, Gosport, Exeter and Plymouth. Been there HUNDREDS of years with no significant sea level rise.

    • You can think what you wish, that does not change reality, James Eskridge observes reality and points it out to the lie spewing huckster AlGore:TheGoreacle, you can accept reality or you can continue to wish for sea levels to rise. There it is.

    • You “think” sea level is rising? We are discussing matters of fact, your opinion doesnt matter one way or another.
      The guys busines is on the water. Literally. Probably on piles. He can measure sea level with a tape measure, and he assures us its been the same for 50 years.

    • You guys are all missing the point. The post’s title asserts that the crabber “schooled” Gore. He did no such thing. To my perceptions, it was a wash. Most of you are projecting your own beliefs, knowledge, and arguments into the exchange with Gore to see things that just aren’t there. The crabber, for example, did not argue that sea level change was local instead of global, as one poster argues. Nor did the crabber argue that sea level rise stopped in 2015 according to NASA data, that 20 foot sea level rise projections are unrealistic, that sea level rise is insignificant compared to waves. etc. All these things may be true, but they are irrelevant to the narrow exchange between Gore and the crabber.

      View the video again, and ask yourself whether any person convinced that global warming was causing sea level rise, or for that matter any neutral person, would be all that persuaded merely by the crabber’s argument that he personally doesn’t notice any sea level change, compared to Gore’s polite response that the actual measurements show that change. The instant thought that pops into my mind after this exchange – and remember, I’m one who thinks that the degree of warming from CO2 is inherently unknowable and therefore any attributable sea level rise is also unknowable – is that the crabber doesn’t notice it for the same reason I don’t notice my hair growing from one day to the next – it’s so slow that you never realize what has occurred until the change is so great that it forces you to realize it,

      Further, everyone seems to agree that sea levels are rising, and given that we’re in the interglacial period of an ice age, it would be surprising for there to be no sea level rise at all, even as glaciers continue to retreat. The argument is over the issue of whether that rise is accelerating or not, and even if so, whether that acceleration is due to CO2 or whether it’s just natural variation.

  9. ivankinsman, it looks as if you have a double possessive adjective there since “ivankin” = ivanka’s,

  10. The simple and accurate answer to the mayor’s question would be that the recent rise in sea level is insignificant compared to waves, tides and all of the other ways in which the sea surface height is always moving.

    2 mm/yr * 45 yr = 90 mm… less than 4 inches. This is simply insignificant relative to typical tidal ranges and wave heights.

    • Sea level isn’t currently behaving any differently than it has since the mid-1800’s.

      Sea Level Reconstruction (Jevrejeva et al., 2014)

      The current phase of sea level rise began in the mid-1800’s, at the end of the Holocene neoglaciation. Holocene sea level reached its peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (5-7 kya)…

      At that time, the climate generally began to cool, with intermittent periods of warming. This period is is called neoglaciation. Glaciers generally advanced and sea level generally fell. This cooling trend culminated in the Little Ice Age (LIA)…

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/09/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-4-the-global-reconstruction/

      The nadir of the LIA was the coldest phase of the Holocene. It was possibly as cold as Late Pleistocene glacial interstadial periods. Most valley and alpine glaciers reached their maximum extent at this time.


      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5722/675?variant=full-text&sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&oauth-code=292fde90-8c5c-49af-be4b-2a9aba68fb84

      The warming since ~1600 AD, the glacial retreat and sea level rise since ~1850 are simply manifestations of a millennial scale cycle super-imposed on the Holocene’s long-glide back down to the next Quaternary glacial stage. Humans are, at most, contributing a little bit of extra warming to the overall system. This is a very good thing, because advancing glaciers and falling sea levels are a lot worse than retreating glaciers and rising sea level.

      • Thank you David! These charts should be on the walls of every science classroom in the world. The return to glaciation should be on the agenda under the heading of “Climate Change”!

    • The issue here is whether sea level is rising. If someone wants to say it isn’t then he/she is in serious denial.

      The questions of attribution/potential acceleration are different issues, and this isn’t even close to being resolved.

      • Sea level isn’t rising everywhere. There are plenty of places where it is falling.

        However, in most places, sea level rise is simply below the resolution of the typical observer.

        The odds are that a 1973 USGS topo sheet would show sea level at Tangier Island to be right where is is now.

      • The UK Royal Navy has information that dates back hundreds of years. That data is not freely available, but it shows NOTHING!

  11. Of course sea levels are rising, they have been for (about) the last 15,000 years, and this is not under debate. It is the rate and cause that have been brought by the left as a crisis. Sea level rise has been at a very low rate for the last 3000 years; some claiming approximately 3.2mm per decade, until about 1930 when they say it abruptly shifted to about 3.3mm per year. The interesting thing to me is that sea level has never been static, and Florida is still 25 feet below levels it has seen in recent geologic time. The idea that any shoreline is static, or anything like static, is a notion created by our short lifetimes. Beaches and shorelines move. We live on a dynamic planet. When we build cities at the the interface or on marshy soils, there will always be a price to be paid, it’s only a question of when the check will bounce.

    • As the arctic ice sheet melts atca faster rate – and there is irrefutable evidence that it is – that water has to go somewhere i.e. into the oceans or is it just going to evaporate? Cities like Miami are already reacting to rising sea levels … just check it out.

      • I think you are confusing the melting of sea ice and the ‘Arctic Ice sheet’. There has been a lower extent of Arctic sea ice. The case for a change (reduction) in the volume of Arctic ice sheets on land or grounded is a very different question. The important one is the Greenland ice sheet and the total volume is approximately stable. It may be growing insignificantly, according to the best evidence (satellite gravitational readings). It is definitely not melting ‘at a faster rate’.

        Miami will be under (shallow) water within 5000 years if a new ice age does not start by then. So what? No one will live there, I presume.

        I don’t know why people are so upset about something that happens naturally and which is not ‘threatening’. Sea level has rise hundreds of feet in a few thousand years, but is lower than it was 6000 years ago. So what? Was someone named Al born with a contract guaranteeing that the patterns of nature will be suspended during his lifetime? What a crock. I think it is significant that the IPCC AR5 confidently contradicts Al Gore’s imagination.

      • Ivan, there’s been no decrease in the Antarctic sea ice. Why hasn’t that been melting?

        Antarctic sea ice is much better indicator of global climatic conditions than Arctic ice. The Arctic ocean is 80% landlocked. Only the northern Atlantic ocean has significant contact with the Arctic ocean. The Antarctic waters are open to the much warmer waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans.

      • Sorry, James, but where do you get your information from. I did a quick Google check to verify this and came up with this:

        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=89280

        “On an annual basis, the total Antarctic sea ice extent has increased about 1 percent per decade since 1979. Still, the long-term trend still shows a global decline in sea ice. The chart of global extent demonstrates how, over the long term, the slight increases in Antarctic sea ice have not offset the large losses in the Arctic.”

        So, it seems we are both wrong here. Antartic ice cover up a bit but Arctic ice cover down much more in comparison which results in a net loss overall.

        And another article – NASA – confirming this overall loss:

        NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains

        https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

      • Ivan, I suspect you’re new here. Stick around for a few months and you may begin to re-examine some of your beliefs; many before you have done so.

      • Hello Gavin, you may be right but I am absolutely convinced this is the greatest danger to mankind – greater than ISIS, the Taliban, immigration (which I am anti when it comes to illegal economic immigration), the Russians etc. I think there is deliberate misinformation being put out, funded by Robert Mercer, Charles and David Koch etc. to confuse the picture. This is not an issue for one country but is going to required a united global effort to meet the global heating challenges that lie ahead for our children and their children (I am a father of two)…

      • “I think there is deliberate misinformation being put out” Yes, you got one thing right, AlGore:TheGoreacle and his minions(which you appear to be one of) put out misinformation deliberately. So, a teachable moment is upon you, listen carefully. Humans are not causing the climate to change, and humans can not stop the climate from changing. Have a nice life.

      • I live out here in the world, working, every day. When I get back to PA from Eastham I have a week or so of hay and alfalfa cutting, fluffing and baling, then we should be able to get started on the first set of corn picking, in-between all that I have a kitchen remodel to start, plus general landscape upkeep for several customers. What do you do with your meaningless life? Other than spew lies about the environment?

      • Jesus J thought you were some big city nerd. If you lead this lifestyle then surely you must see what is going on around you? I am having to water my fruit trees and garden more often on my 4 ha because of the longer hot spells. Get real man – it’s the rural communities who should be up in arms over dirty industries like King Coal, chemical fracking (almost non-existent in Europe) and GMO crap. Global heating is the biggest problem of all in my opinion but I know you see it as just hocus pocus.

      • OK, so if what you claim is true – which it blantantly isn’t – then this whole article in a reputable science magazine is completely fabricated.

        “The accelerating surface melt has doubled Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise since 1992–2011, to 0.74 mm per year. “Nobody expected the ice sheet to lose so much mass so quickly,” says geophysicist Isabella Velicogna of the University of California, Irvine. “Things are happening a lot faster than we expected.”

        http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

      • Fill a glass half full of water, add ice, let ice melt, measure the difference. Fill glass half full of water, place a funnel on top of glass, fill cone of funnel full of ice, let melt, measure the difference. Didn’t you do any of this experiments in elementary school science class?

      • Ivankinsman, here is a link to NOAA’s Sea Level Trends map. Even in the relatively small, contained area of the Gulf Coast, projected sea level rise is not uniform. The worst projected “sea level rise” on the Gulf Coast (3-4 feet in a century) is at New Orleans – which happens to be sinking (subsiding). Nowhere is that fact mentioned. Miami’s projection is 0-1 feet per century.

        https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

        By the way – you do realize that Arctic sea ice has been monitored by satellites for less than 40 years, right? Before that, we didn’t really know what the extent was. So how do you know that the ice sheet is melting faster than it did, say, 100 years ago? or 200 years ago? or 1000 years ago?

      • Ivan, if the atmosphere and oceans are truly warming, shouldn’t Antarctic as well as Arctic sea ice be diminishing?

      • Ivankinsman, Perhaps you have heard of subsidence, which accounts for most of the purported sea level rise in Miami , the Mississippi delta, and Chesapeake Bay. It is not so much that the sea is rising, but the land falling.

      • Where’s the evidence proving this statement? It’s like saying there are little green men living on Jupiter. Do you believe me? If not why not?

      • Do a bit of research yourself. Dueling links is a common troll game, and If you are serious, check, lets say, the index on this site for Miami and sea level rise. It is that I presume you do know better, and are posturing.

      • And who is us? Red neck city? Start reading about what is going on on the world instead of hoping the Donald is going to be your saviour. Dream on man…

      • I have been in the world. During my 57 years I have traveled far, met many people, done many things. Built houses, and bridges, dug wells in Honduras and Central Africa, jumped out of airplanes and rappelled out of helicopters, been shot at and shot back, married a good woman and raised a good son and helped raise children whose parents just weren’t up to the task. Buried friends, buried family, left enemy dead to rot while giving succor and support to their victims. Just exactly have you done with your empty, meaningless life. Sit down and ponder that question. What have you DONE.

      • I too have travelled the world my friend. Moved from UK to Poland in 2002 and married my Polish wife and have 2 kids. Lived in the US for three years. Visited about 25 countries. Worked in Saudi Arabia for 2 years. Moved to my Polish village in 2004 and spent many back-breaking hours clearing the 4 ha of my wife’s grandparents – abandoned for 16 years – so know all about working on the land. My wife says local farmers haven’t seen such dry recent years and never had to worry about drought before.

      • IN spring and summer ice melts, in fall and winter it freezes. Been doing this for millions upon millions of years.

      • ivankinsman
        August 4, 2017 at 5:03 am

        As the arctic ice sheet melts atca faster rate – and there is irrefutable evidence that it is – that water has to go somewhere i.e. into the oceans or is it just going to evaporate? Cities like Miami are already reacting to rising sea levels … just check it out.

        Did you mean Arctic? You do know that the ice is mainly floating on the sea in the arctic and as a result, if or when it melts it will make absolutely no difference to sea levels anywhere. It is only melting snow and ice on land that contributes to sea level – and then only if it has been snow and ice for a long time.

        SteveT

      • Ivan, if you want to have any credibility on this site, do some basic research before you make what are silly comments.
        Miami was BUILT 100 years ago with their streets below the highest tides. Al’s “Miami flooding” pictures could have been taken a century ago.
        Even beyond that, what do you think has been the impact of all that pavement, concrete and high rise hotels built in a swamp?

      • The arctic ice sheets are floating, their melting has no impact on sea levels.
        PS, they’ve only been melting if you compare them to the record highs of the 1970’s.

      • MarkW is using language loosely. Ice shelves are by definition floating. Ice sheets is also used for continental glaciers, which are not except at the edges.

      • Cities like Miami are reacting to news storys about sea level rise, not actual sea level rise which is quite insignificant.

      • You know that is bollocks. The city is spending large amounts of money – this would not be just on hearsay you fool. Think man – in Miami they already experience it.

      • “The city is spending large amounts of money” Because it was built on a SWAMP, MORON. Learn how to read, then buy a f**king clue.

      • Ivan,

        Your science mag link attributes most of the melt due to soot or black carbon. Not everyone on this blog is for the burning of dirty coal. Some of that black carbon is natural from dust and natural fires and Icelandic volcanoes.

        post http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

        If you really want to lobby someone to your point of view, you should lobby China and other parts of Asia because that’s where most if not nearly all of the fossil fuel black carbon is coming from. You can lobby Iceland too to see if they can do something about their volcanoes (sarc). On the other hand burning natural gas emits hardly any black carbon.

        Did you know that the Paris Climate agreement allows China and India to continue burning dirty coal and oil?

        Google is your friend.

      • China and India recognise that they have to get their houses in order. They have committed to the Paris climate agreement and are already way ahead of the US in green technologies. Trump is a moron over King Coal – no forward-thinking company is going to invest as they know Trump will be out after 4 years.

      • And yet another lie. India and China are doing as they please, which means building coal fired plants, hydro electric systems and nuclear generation plants. You really are a one trick pony.

      • Closing coal fired plants dunderhead – haven’t you heard about the populace’s anger about smog and now the government is doing a big push on solar. Stop making bland statements and show me some FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up your statements.

      • ivankinsman. if you do not want to end up looking as dim as al gore i would suggest you not only read some of the replies you have received already, but do some more reading on the topics you are so keen to bring up. bringing beginner level climate alarmism here is really not a good idea.

      • A quick perusal of that “website” clearly shows you have wasted your time. And hours? You must have to sound out the words as you read.

      • “I have devoted hours to researching this issue. Have you?”

        Yes, years.

        In fact, decades.

        You are entirely clueless.

        And pig thick with it.

      • Ivan

        “Go back to the shithole you crawled out of … I am fed up with trying to educate morons about what is going on with climate change.”

        Respectfully suggest that you consider your language, AND read up a little to provide something better your anecdotal, flimsy and biased lack of knowledge.

        There are plenty of people on this site with substantial knowledge on either side of the argument, but based on your several statements here, you are not one of them.

      • ivankinsman August 4, 2017 at 3:35 pm
        China and India recognise that they have to get their houses in order. They have committed to the Paris climate agreement and are already way ahead of the US in green technologies.

        India is now backing out of its commitment:

        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/

  12. What was the forum where this took place? Did they pay Al Gore? If so, then he still wins.As a question asker from the audience I’m sure that Mr. James Eskridge was not paid.

    • people like gore will always be winners in the money stakes solely due to birthright . the land he comes from is neither the land of the free or equal opportunity.

      where he will never win is personal integrity.morals or conscience. if he had been born to working class parents i have no doubt he would have struggled to buy a lot in a trailer park rather than a home worth millions.

  13. Unfortunately the Mayor was too polite to really nail Gore and Gore got off lightly. We need more mongrel in making liars such as Gore be accountable. Say – Mr Gore come to the island and you show me how sea level has risen – not go off on a tangent about storms. We have a beach in Melbourne – Portsea that disappeared about 5 years ago and then I hear a local say it repositioned itself down the road in the same way about 60 years ago and produced a photo of a pier down the road with no water near it. That pier today is awash with water.
    “This wheel’s on fire Rolling down the road”.

  14. One of the challenges of this issue is taking what the scientists say and… squaring it with reality.

  15. At some point Americans will have to realize that Al Gore and his Globalists fine Americans Completely Expendable! WE are nothing but fodder in the War Against Humanity! THEY will do anything to further their Religion!

  16. “They are not lies. He believes everything he says. Kinda like a religion.”

    Not “kinda like” religion, exactly like religion. Globalwarmists treat data exactly the same way creation “scientists” treat data:

    Any data that supports their ideology is instantly declared “proof”. Any data that does not support their ideology is deleted, ignored, altered, impugned, or refuted.

  17. I love the thread at jo nova at the moment which is letting the world know how much of a hypocrite this man is , one years electricity for his house is enough to run 21 normal households .

  18. ALGore:TheGoreacle is the Grand Wizzard of the Church of Man Caused Globall Warmining. Reality will never intrude into his religiously driven fantasy world.

  19. Monna M It is Miami that is the most vulnerable city in the US to rising sea levels and the authorities are already taking protective measures – why put in all these financial resources if it is not happening? This BBC report (independent i.e. no external financing involved) explains it all:

    “One reason is that water levels here are rising especially quickly. The most frequently-used range of estimates puts the likely range between 15-25cm (6-10in) above 1992 levels by 2030, and 79-155cm (31-61in) by 2100. With tides higher than they have been in decades – and far higher than when this swampy, tropical corner of the US began to be drained and built on a century ago – many of south Florida’s drainage systems and seawalls are no longer enough. That means not only more flooding, but challenges for the infrastructure that residents depend on every day, from septic tanks to wells. “The consequences of sea level rise are going to occur way before the high tide reaches your doorstep,” says William Sweet, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The flooding would be a challenge for any community, but it poses particular risks here. One recent report estimated that Miami has the most to lose in terms of financial assets of any coastal city in the world, just above Guangzhou, China and New York City.”

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise

    • Miami is sinking, the oceans aren’t rising.
      When Miami was first built 100 years ago, many of it’s streets would regularly flood during big storms, especially at high tide. Nothing has changed.

      • In the land reclamation done to build Miami most of the fill used was sand/silt dredged from the surrounding area. Stone was brought in by rail to set foundations, along with massive amounts of cement. Wood piles were used to a large extent, also.

      • Tell that go the residents of Miami. A whole city is going to be wiped off the map eventually. The Miami republican representatives have already set up a bi-partisan caucus to cope with climate change’s impact.

      • Yes, stupid, because it was built on a SWAMP. You are either intentionally obtuse or a climatard troll, which amounts to the same thing.

      • IMO ivankinsman would have us believe the Titanic didn’t sink; the ocean rose above its decks.

    • The Northern parts of Eastern North America are rising as the continent “returns” from the compression of glacial ice sheets. The South Eastern parts of the continent are subsiding. This has been going on for thousands and thousand of years.

    • “With tides higher than they have been in decades – and far higher than when this swampy, tropical corner of the US began to be drained and built on a century ago –”

      That says it all. You drain a swamp and build there and are too ignorant or stupid to understand why the swamp refills itself. Science is obviously dead now.

      • Add to that when you “drain” swamp the ground actually sinks as it dries out, I have witnessed this firsthand on land reclamation work I was involved in. After a couple of months the ground to each side of the road way we built into the area had lowered a foot or more. The only thing making it usable land was all the fill that was brought in, thousands upon thousands of tons that was dredged from channels along the Pearl River and sections of the Inter-coastal Waterway, and lots of broken up concrete from the rebuilding project along sections of I 59 and I 10.

    • Your arguments seem to circle around and around and always come back to the same point of rising CO2 levels increasing temperatures and melting ice wherever it may be, causing sea levels to rise, with humanity to blame. On the surface, it seems very simple. It’s not. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to grasp that point. Additionally, understand that predictions/projections come in a wide range of possibilities. If you look, you’ll find ranges for future sea level rise from the minuscule up to apocalyptic and everything in between. How do you decide which one you will believe? Regardless of which sea level rise prediction/projection you believe is correct, you will absolutely be able to find information online to support that belief. It’s our nature to look for information to confirm what we believe. That confirmation bias is simply a part of the human condition. The debate around CO2 is the key. You believe sea levels are rising and it’s because of CO2 warming the planet. Why wouldn’t you believe this? Virtually every media outlet on the planet tells us that man-made CO2 is dangerously warming the planet. Again, like sea level rise, you can find ranges for the effects of CO2 to be between virtually zero up to apocalyptic. Pick a range you believe or any point in that range and you’ll find all the information you want to back up your belief. That confirmation bias becomes a feedback loop decreasing your ability to see anything outside of whatever it is you believe.

      My suggestion, with you seeming to be new here, isn’t to come in with all sorts of claims about sea level rise or how dangerous CO2 is to the planet, but to come here and start asking questions. This website isn’t a Koch funded operation to disseminate lies and disinformation. You’ll find this site is full of scientists and engineers who will gladly answer good faith questions in a manner to educate, no to spread disinformation. So, ask questions. Ask hard questions. When you receive answers you might disagree with, ask more questions, but do it respectfully, in a polite manner. Have a conversation, not an argument, and do everything in your power to challenge whatever it is you believe.

  20. I will not play or listen to anything ALGORE says. He’s a shyster, a manipulator an ugly piece of fat dung. I have ZERO interest in this thing called Gore. But I am happy he was schooled, but it’s pretty simple to school this idiot.

  21. I have had the same question as Eskridge, regarding Padre Island on the coast of Texas. My green friends say sea level increased some 5 feet last century. If that were true the low dunes of Padre Island would be under water. I have been vacationing there about 60 years and can see no change whatsoever.

    • I grew up in south Mississippi, got family along the Gulf Coast, MS and TX, and in southern Louisiana, and they have all been asking the same question, to wit, if sea level is rising so badly why are we not all treading water already? South coastal LA has major problems with tidal erosion and loss of vegetation in the lower bayou country, other than that everything is just hunkey dorey.

  22. “One of the challenges of this issue is taking what the scientists say and translating it into terms which are believable to people where they can see the consequences in their own lives and I get that and I try every day to figure out ways to do that.”

    If what the scientists told us were true, there would be no challenge. Truth is easy to explain. It’s lies that are complicated. It’s the lies that have to be made “believable”.

  23. They will never get a seawall now. Besides, such things are considered infrastructure and that means it’s a political pawn and the money was spend on tax credits for the green rich anyway.

  24. 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

  25. If you had to choose one thing, one thing only, to put up as evidence that cAGW is a hoax, a fr4ud, scam, crock of BS, what might it be?

    Me?
    I say “Tipper dumped Al”

    You ask why.
    I ask “Where are all the girls in this discussion. There are a few but hardly 50% as you might expect, all things being equal. And that is odd is it not?
    Surely girls are the sensitive caring types. If anyone was worried about “The Grandchildren” or “The Polar Bears” “The Pika” and/or the Delta Smelt etc etc, it would be them.

    But boys have hijacked the sensitive & caring meme.
    Why?
    Does it really matter. I say it’s a paltry effort to get into the girl’s knickers.
    As a strategy for bedding girls, its failing miserably innit?
    Otherwise, why are there now fewer babies than there has ever been?
    And any and all attempts by boys to inflate their intelligence are failing too.

    Because girls have an intuition, a sixth sense that boys cannot hope to emulate because in all probability, the girls have it within their genetics. They are hard-wired to sense things that boys don’t see/feel/sense.

    It goes to what I’ve raved about with “First Impressions” and actually being in the company of someone. You can tell if they are lying. You ‘just know’
    Hence why girls initiate most divorces and the boy is left clueless about what he’s done wrong.
    Technology takes that away.

    And hence why Tipper dumped Al.
    She sensed that he’s a liar, a fr@ud, a snake oil salesman and hypocrite.
    Despite him doing all the things that should attract her to him – houses, money, foreign travel, expensive gifts if she wanted, whatever whatever. The very basis of Romance. i.e The exchange of gifts for s3x.

    Al was/is the world’s leading proponent of Climate Change, and, with every fibre of her body and mind, in the biggest and most public way she could, Tipper told the world that Al Gore is a total fr@ud.

  26. Translation,

    “I spend all my time trying to come up with ways to convince simple folks like you, that what they are SEEING is false and what they cannot see (or measure or observe) is REAL. It’s hard…really hard, because there’s no evidence to back up what MY scientists tell me, so I get that, and I’m always looking for new ways to answer questions in a manner that avoids dealing with that lack of evidence in any way.”

  27. For all the climate sceptics out there with whom I have been arguing>

    I woke up this morning, checked the BBC News (unbiased, independent) website and look what I was reading about as today’s main headline news.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40449234

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663

    But of course, in your eyes this is all hocus pocus, dreamt up by fatcats like Al Gore to rip off the average working Joe and, yes Donald, it’s all a big Chinese hoax to shaft the USA:

    • Ivan, someone gave you some very good advice. You should heed it.

      I am not a scientist, but I am a regular reader of WUWT articles and the comments. There is a great deal of knowledge about climate here. You are bringing beginner-level climate alarmism trolling to these people, who have demonstrated remarkable patience with your drivel. I suggest that you ask sincere questions, not throw out random challenges, because you are out of your league.

      • Craig, to be frank I find your comments not only insulting but feckless. I have developed a whole website dedicated to research on environmental issues – can I ask what makes your opinions any better than mine?
        Nearly every comment I have made here had been backed up with solid evidence unlike many of the people I have communicated with who have made very generalised unsupported statements i.e. drivel as you like to call it.
        So can I suggest you put up a comment that adds rather than detracts from the debate.

    • “ivankinsman August 5, 2017 at 12:43 am

      I woke up this morning, checked the BBC News (unbiased, independent)…”

      You woke up to that? You must still be dreaming…

    • Also, Ivan, you should pay attention to the responses you do get. For example, how many times do you have to be told that Miami is built on a swamp before you acknowledge the relevance of that fact? Your ignoring of responses that do not fit your alarmist narrative only serves to highlight your insincerity.

    • I read the BBC article, as well as a number of others about Miami’s SLR/flooding situation. Miami sits less than 6′ above sea level. By contrast, my city in SE Michigan, a flat area, sits 630′ above sea level, was not built over a swamp and does not have King tides twice a year (or ever). When we have flooding issues (rarely), they are due to inadequate drainage systems after a heavy rain, which is also an issue in Miami. From what I’ve read, Florida, the whole geographic state, has been underwater for most of its existence.

      I do not take away any need to change national or global economics for the worse (which means misery for millions of people) because Miami and some other cities were built in places susceptile to so much subsidence and other flooding factors.

      As for SLR in general, there is much information here at WUWT that you can research. Though not a scientist, I can follow rational arguments and propositions. My takeaway is that it is not an alarming situation, and is natural.

      • We will agree to disagree my friend. You seem to disagree with virtually all the countries bar 2 who signed up to the 2015 IPCC Paris climate agreement. May be you and other commentators here know more than the thousands of climate scientists et al. involved in thrashing out this deal.

      • Ivan, maybe we do know more than the bureaucrats that cobbled together the “accord”, which is not about climate anyway, but about redistributing wealth. That’s why America’s withdrawal was such a jolt to the others – third world dictators will not be getting even more largess from the USA than they already do. Paris is a huge scam, and I am proud that President Trump got us out of it.

        The American and world economy are already in dire straits. New self-imposed leg-irons on them are the opposite of what is needed, which is greater liberty and free markets (same thing). People need jobs, food and energy.

        SLR is not accelerating, and some rise is natural in an inter-glacial period such as the one we are in (Holocene).

        But yes, we can agree to disagree. I trust those scientists not being awarded government grants to promulgate government and UN propaganda.

    • “We simulate what is the possible weather under the current climate and then we simulate what is the possible weather without anthropogenic climate change, and then we compare these two likelihoods which gives us the risk ratio,” Dr Friederike Otto from the University of Oxford, one of the study’s authors, told BBC News.
      “We found a very strong signal.”

      Ivan, comparing one simulation to another simulation to derive a signal is meaningless.

      • Why? It will not be 100% accurate but it will give a good idea of what the potential results could be. If it was totally meaningless then why would the University of Oxford participate in such a study if it was all ‘meaningless’?

      • “why would the University of Oxford participate in such a study if it was all ‘meaningless’?” Money. Politics. Prestige with a specific community. Funding grants. Leftist political agenda. Desire to control what hoi polloi are allowed to do and have. Hubris. You don’t have to pick one, it is a combination of them all.

      • University of Oxford like Harvard. Enormously rich and has no need to seek out funding. Produces some of the best scientists in the world. So definitely not for these reasons – so not want to degrade their academic reputation.

      • And yet that is all they do, whore themselves for money, and leftist agenda pimping, never forget their endlessly pimping the leftist agenda without out end.

      • Why the hell should climate change be a leftist agenda? Does it just affect Lefties? It’s a f@@@@@g global problem affecting everyone on this planet.

      • Ivan, google Maurice Strong, or Christiana Figueres. Both major players in the IPCC. Ignore the first few pages of results, which are almost always fluff defending the PC cause.

      • Hello Tom, I know about Christina Figueres but, to be frank, I do not want to go down the political path on this as it just boils down to alt right vs. liberals.

        For me, global heating is simply a question of the science that underpins it – whether it can be proved it is happening or not and – if it is – what are the consequences.

        This is the best viewpoint I have seen on the political aspect:

        Summary: How climate scepticism turned into something more dangerous (07.2017)

        Doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters. Once this kind of cynicism takes hold, is there any hope for the truth?

        Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/07/climate-change-denial-scepticism-cynicism-politics

      • “doubts about the motives of scientists” No doubts, they are pushing a leftist political agenda. Once again, since you are clearly dense and willingly obtuse. Climate changes, humans are not causing it and humans can not stop it. Period. Full stop.

      • The more I think about the debates I have, the more it seems that it is the US that has the most climate sceptics – this whole denial does not exist in Europe where I come from.

        I believe this is principally because there is a very large amount of misinformation put out in the US media – again, not happening in Europe. Take a look at this my friend and you will think differently about human vs. non-human induced global heating:

        https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/08/americans-under-siege-from-climate-disinformation-former-nasa-chief-scientist?CMP=share_btn_link

      • No, the people you are in lockstep with are leftists, just like you. You refuse to accept reality, that is just what you are, self deluded and happy in your apocryphal fantasy. Again, endlessly without end, climate changes, humans do not cause it and humans can not stop it. Period. Full stop.

      • Not a ‘leftist’ e.g. the one thing I support the Donald on is his immigration reforms. The EU has been incredibly weak and ineffective on illegal economic migration. Just because you support the science underpinning global heating doesn’t automatically make you a Leftie.

      • Leftists love strict immigration control. Control of people’s movement inside a country is one of the first goals of leftists, as it is one of the goals of your leftist environazi agenda, control what food they can access is another, shutoff the energy they can access is yet another. Your leftist agenda is not about the climate, it is totally about CONTROL. All you care about is driving people down into poverty, as long as YOU get to be on the side in command. Again, climate changes, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Get over yourself, you are not all that important.

      • 2015 IPCC Paris climate agreement – the best thing since white sliced bread:

        A list of the signatory countries is here: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/

        Climate change, or global warming, refers to the damaging effect of gases, or emissions, released from industry, transportation, agriculture and other areas into the atmosphere.

        Graphic showing impact of US pulling out of Paris deal

        The Paris accord aims to limit the global rise in temperature attributed to emissions. Only Syria and Nicaragua did not sign up. Countries agreed to:

        * Keep global temperatures “well below” the level of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and “endeavour to limit” them even more, to 1.5C
        *Limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100
        *Review each country’s contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge
        *Enable rich countries to help poorer nations by providing “climate finance” to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy
        *Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the world’s average temperature has risen by about 0.8C since 1880, two-thirds of that since 1975.

        US think tank Climate Interactive predicts that if all nations fully achieve their Paris pledges, the average global surface temperature rise by 2100 will be 3.3C, or 3.6C without the US.

      • So, you trot out another list of socialist enemies of the human race. How typical of a socialist. Again, the facts, climate changes, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Go polish your jackboots, leftist.

  28. I do have to agree with Dr Otto, they did find a very strong signal, to wit if they say certain things their funding stream continues.

Comments are closed.