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.
ALGore:TheGoreacle is the Grand Wizzard of the Church of Man Caused Globall Warmining. Reality will never intrude into his religiously driven fantasy world.
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.
Look around you my friend. Same up to global heating and start preparing. In my opinion city dwellers are mostly f@ur momisugly###d – once the global food chain breaks down what will they do? Start learning how to support yourself and you may pull on through…
Breaks down? Because plant growth is increasing, or because crop yields are increasing? Or is it because far fewer acres are producing the food to feed far more people? Pick one, pinhead. Which one is making the food chain break down?
When I spoke about global food chain breaking down, here is an example of my supporting evidence:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/27/vulnerable-chokepoints-threaten-global-food-supply-warns-report?CMP=share_btn_link
[snip . . . mod]
and another example of what’s happening in the developing world (let’s not just focus on the good ‘ol US of A):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/suicides-of-nearly-60000-indian-farmers-linked-to-climate-change-study-claims?CMP=share_btn_link
[snip . . . mod]
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.
That was an Orwellian response by Gore if there ever was one.
Meanwhile the CBC keeps the promote up…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/jeff-skoll-inconvenient-sequel-1.4232123
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.
“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”.
AlGore just really didnt understand did he?
This story is uplifting from the little guy perspective. Thanks
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.
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
They will have to take his new one in front of a judge and get a similar ruling, because it is going to be foisted off on school kids just as the first one was.
WaPo yesterday rated Al’s Sequel at 2.5 stars out of 4.
[snip . . . mod]
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.
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.”
Al Gore sings “Ball of Fire” by Paul Shanklin
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OD0jeBhCjz0
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:
[snip . . . mod]
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.
[snip . . . mod]
“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…
I wish I was Patrick but over here in Europe people are experiencing global heating and are very united on the factors causing it.
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.
OK, let me respond to that now. This article gives a very clear indication on what is happening with Miami. The fact that it is built on a swamp is a factor – which is acknowledged in the article – but so are rising sea levels. Read this article thoroughly and then get back to me with any useful criticism you have to make of it (I also sent it to the individual who made the original comment):
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
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.
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@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisuglyg 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 climate changes, humans are not causing it and humans can not stop it. Get it?
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.
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.