How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy – Al Gore has provided a target-rich environment of deceptions in his new movie.
Guest essay by Dr. Roy Spencer
After viewing Gore’s most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little astounded. The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors.
So, I was inspired to do something about it. I’d like to announce my new e-book, entitled An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, now available on Amazon.com.
After reviewing some of Gore’s history in the environmental movement, I go through the movie, point by point.
One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. As I discuss in the book, this is what he did in his first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), too.
For example, sea level rise. Gore is seen surveying flooded streets in Miami Beach.
That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach.
In other words, Miami Beach was going to have to deal with the increasing flooding from their “king tides”, with or without carbon dioxide emissions.
Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July.
The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.
So, why is your SUV suddenly being blamed when it happens today?
The list goes on and on.
Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world. Here’s the situation for all grain crops in China:
And that lack of rainfall in Syria that supposedly caused conflict and war? It didn’t happen. Poor farmers could no longer afford diesel fuel to pump groundwater because Assad tripled the price. Semi-arid Syria is no place to grow enough crops for a rapidly growing population, anyway.
I also address Gore’s views on alternative energy, mainly wind and solar. It is obvious that Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the “cost” of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from. If and when renewable energy become cost-competitive, it won’t need politicians and pundits like Mr. Gore campaigning for it.
To counter what is in movie theaters now, I had to whip up this book in only 2 weeks, and I didn’t have a marching army of well-funded people like Gore has had. (Too bad he didn’t have someone doing fact-checking.) Despite my disadvantage, I think I present a powerful case that most of what he presents is, at the very least, very deceptive.
I suspect spotting what was wrong was the easy part. (1 day?)
Debunking it with facts wasn’t hard but took up the rest of the 2 weeks. (Less the typing time.)
That’s what they do. Make helacious, unfounded claims to get the headline to make “the first impression” and hope it sticks despite what happens or anyone says afterwards.
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for writing the ebook with evidence that refutes Mr. Gore’s claims. That is a very useful reference.
I see in my copy of your ebook, “When renewable energy becomes economically competitive and practical, as I hope it one day will, I will be all for it.” – Introduction pp 3-4.
Actually, some forms of renewable energy are already economically competitive and practical. As you have researched and studied long and hard in the sciences, I have also done much the same in the field of energy.
The electrical grids have a range of generating costs, ranging from very high for gas-fired peaker power plants that are seldom used, to very low for large hydroelectric plants. Other forms of electrical generation fall somewhere in between, with those others usually being nuclear, coal, natural gas, and oil.
Wind turbine generators in the best locations and with most modern technology today provide their investors a reasonable return on investment with a total sales price of US $ 43 per MWh (2015 and 2016 Wind Technology Report – DOE). That $43 is a combination of $20 from the utility plus $23 as tax credits on the wind farm owner’s federal tax return.
It is true that offshore wind turbine generators have, at present, a much higher price for their power, typically 5 times that of onshore.
Such onshore wind power prices are attractive to a utility that purchases wind power at $20 and does not need to run a gas-fired peaker power plant that may provide power at double or triple that cost.
Even when the renewables production tax credit expires in a few years, wind turbine generators will be attractive at full price of $43 per MWh compared to natural gas at $7 or higher. By that time, advances in wind turbine generator technology is expected to reduce the sales price for new installations to below $40 per MWh.
In addition, as I stated in my article earlier, wind power systems reduce the demand for, and the price of, natural gas. “Wind power extends the life of natural gas wells. Wind power creates less demand for natural gas. This reduces the price of natural gas. That helps the entire economy, especially home heating bills, plus the price of electricity from burning natural gas. But, this also reduces the cost to make fertilizer that impacts food, since natural gas is the source of hydrogen that is used to make ammonia fertilizer.”
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html
“Tax credits” = Subsidies.
“By that time” = Projection
Putting those two together does not equal “Actually, some forms of renewable energy are already economically competitive and practical.” (Well, maybe in the short term for the likes of Al Gore.)
TYPO!
“or higher. By that time, ”
Was supposed to be:
“or higher…By that time, ”
(Indicating I left out part of the quote.)
No argument, the production tax credit is a federal subsidy.
The point is that even without the PTC, wind energy would be sold at $43 today. That is attractive TODAY to a utility that has marginal costs equal to or greater than that.
Roger,
Do you live among wind turbines?
Roger Sowell: Wind is competitive at the plant gate if you include subsidies. Once the subsidies end, so does the “competitive” price. But even if wind were to be fully competitive with gas-fired generation at the plant gate, you STILL have to build the gas-fired and other plants anyway because wind and solar output is often poorly correlated with times of peak demand. (In northern climates in the winter, the sun is low in the sky and goes to bed early, and deep cold often comes with little wind.) In Germany in January 2016, the country got less than 6% of its electricity from renewables despite an installed capacity just slightly above maximum demand.
[Dear Shocked Citizen, please pick a user name and stick with it. Multiple usernames from the same email are against the standard policy here. -mod]
“Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for writing the ebook with evidence that refutes Mr. Gore’s claims. That is a very useful reference.
I see in my copy of your ebook, “When renewable energy becomes economically competitive and practical, as I hope it one day will, I will be all for it.” – Introduction pp 3-4.”
I won’t ever find windmills acceptable. They are a blight on the landscape and kill untold numbers of precious wildlife, no matter how cheap they might get to operate.
“He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world. Here’s the situation for all grain crops in China. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world.”
Dr. Spencer is correct on this. I was trying to figure out what the half truth might be to Gore’s statement. I didn’t see the movie or read the book but usually, there is some “grain” of truth to some of the deceptive statements. It’s hard to imagine what it could possibly be in this case because its so wrong. Then I speculated that maybe he is using China because most people would have a harder time fact checking yield data from China. Or maybe because so many people live there.
I think that almost everybody knows that 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years ever on the planet. Probably not as many heard that the most fertile and high yield producing corn and soybean region on the planet, the US Cornbelt, also saw record yields in those years for those crops.
Yeah, I know it was just 2 years of growing season weather in a small geographical location and there was no solid correlation to global temperatures in those 2 years or to climate but unlike Gore’s statement, it’s the truth. Yields have continued to steadily climb in this and most locations around the planet, not in spite of climate change and increasing CO2 but in a big part, because of them over recent decades.
The absurdity of using agricultural production as an example of negative consequences from increasing CO2 and human caused climate change is mind boggling. Almost every authentic fact in biology, agronomy, agriculture, crop farming, plant science, world food production and other related fields is lopsidedly in favor of massive recent benefits from the increase in CO2, along with mostly favorable growing seasons.
We had the Cornbelt drought in 2012………after setting the record for consecutive years without a major widespread drought in that region. 24 growing seasons in a row, since the previous one in that category in 1988.
How many people read stories about (human caused) climate change increasing chances for or causing the 2012 drought?
How many read stories about the 24 consecutive growing seasons without a drought there?
Which period of time is closer to representing climate and which one weather?
Nobody can predict when the next severe drought will be. However, we can be sure that (human caused) climate change will get some blame if its in the near future. Hopefully, the next major drought will occur at a point in time when we have come back from the alternate universe of climate science. When up will stop being down and down being up.
LMAO @ur momisugly Spencer……“natural sea level rise ”
…
It is totally hilarious when climate skeptics cannot explain something, and they call it “natural”.
So what “un”natural phenomena caused the sea level to rise since the last ice age? The only thing worse than snark is ignorant snark.
Land ice melting due to rising temperature.
Ocean water expansion (thermal expansion) due to rising temperature.
And the cause of rising temperatures is widely accepted in the scientific world as being due to humans.
Sorry Mark, but that makes the warming that caused those things “natural”, since the period since the last ice age to 1940, saw little CO2/anthropogenic causes for which rising temps could be blamed. So All you really did was just point out some of the “natural” climate changes that caused the changes you claim to be wrongly labeled as “natural sea level rise”. Do you even realize you just refuted your own point? This is what happens when you are an talking point troll that doesn’t fully understand the material.
To clarify for Mark, The scientific community widely accepts “at least half of the warming since 1950” as due to human causes. That actually leaves 150+ years of warming and up to half of the warming for the last 67 years as being “natural”. You really need to learn the source material.
Nope, didn’t “refute” anyting…..just pointed out that using the term “natural” just means you don’t know what the real cause is. Nothing in this universe changes from one state to another without a discernible “cause.” So when anyone claims the cause is “natural” they are full of bovine feces.
B Caswell…..temperatures rise due to some cause……attributing them as “natural” is pointless.
uh huh, of course things change for a reason, but if that reason is not anthropogenic, then it is “natural”. That is what “natural” means. Come on, grade 3 science students have figured out concepts like that.
You have made the assumption that the rise in temperatures is not anthropogenic. Good luck with that assumption.
Most science today attributes the rise in temps as caused by anthropogenic release of green house gasses. If you have a better hypothesis, please let us know.
“B. Caswell August 23, 2017 at 8:05 pm
uh huh, of course things change for a reason, but if that reason is not anthropogenic…”
Given humans are a natural, indigenous, species that evolved on earth, and we just happen to be smart enough to use the world around us for our betterment, then I would say any change we make is natural. 60,000 years ago aboriginal tribes of what is now Australia used resources and changed their environment. Would we want to return to a lifestyle of 60,000 years ago? No thanks! I like Star Trek and Mythbusters too much…oh and takeout. No need to burn grasslands and forest to make dinner! I don’t even have to get out of my chair, just click an app on my smart phone!
Again, for Mark, the rise in sea level (and in temps), predates the rise in CO2, by centuries. So when you keep repeating your talking point about what everyone agrees, you sounds poorly informed when we are actually talking about several hundred years of rises. I already gave you the exact thing “science” has been able to get people to agree on (not necessarily provide proof of it though), but since you keep missing salient point, they said: “at least half of the warming since 1950 as due to human causes”, that in no way shape or form says science agrees all warming since the little ice age is anthropogenic or greenhouse related. Again, learn the source material and drop the mindless repetition of talking points. You clearly don’t understand the topic your trying to troll on.
Patrick, sure humans are part of nature, but by denoting “anthropogenic”, we specifically isolate the human part of nature. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are specifically doing it to bring in religious concepts that assume such ridiculous “original sin” connotations of all human influence as bad. I have no place in my life for religion or such ideas as “all anthro is bad”.
“B. Caswell August 23, 2017 at 8:55 pm”
My post was meant for Mark, so my bad. You get my drift and I think we are on the same page.
Markie is just a drive by troll… He’ll either do one of two things. Either he’ll drive off (and never be seen here again) OR he’ll stick around and soon be forced to ‘man up’. (a troll that sticks around a while doesn’t remain a troll for long)…
“(a troll that sticks around a while doesn’t remain a troll for long)…”
Er, Griff?
Or is he/she/it the exception that proves the rule?
Mark, you’re waaay out of your depth if you think you can just show up and defecate on this blog.
* it is totally hilarious when warmistas claim that a natural phenomena is man-made, yet cannot offer irrefutable evidence to prove it.
* it is also hilarious that warmistas deny ALL historical variations in climate and temperatures, assuming ALL variations are caused by humans. Clearly, you are not familiar with the temperatures/CO2 levels say, 100 million years ago. Or 10 thousand years ago? Have you ever looked???
* sea level rises have been trending for centuries, ever since the end of the last Ice Age. You can look it up. When you do, you will learn that sea levels occasionally have fallen as well, for example during the Little Ice Age.
*Ocean water expansion? Are you serious? Do you have any frickin idea how a 1 degree increase in air temperature translates into an increase in ocean water temperature?
OK, so let’s say you do. Offer some evidence.
You: “Nope, didn’t “refute” anyting…..just pointed out that using the term “natural” just means you don’t know what the real cause is. Nothing in this universe changes from one state to another without a discernible “cause.” So when anyone claims the cause is “natural” they are full of bovine feces.”
Please explain “Nothing in this universe changes from one state to another without a discernible “cause.”
Please tell us what is “discernible” about changes brought about by quantum entanglement.
Mark,
I think we all can agree that CO2 has gone up.
I suppose then, that you will agree that the planet is greening up and the past 30 years has featured the best weather and climate for life on this planet in the past 1,000 years…….ok, you may not agree but I’m an operational meteorologist that predicts crop production/energy use…..so I’m stating a fact from observations.
Regardless of what is causing the sea level to increase at 1 inch per decade you obviously know that the planet is massively greening up and crop yields are going thru the roof.
Maybe you also know that global drought has shrunk and that violent tornadoes are down and that a major hurricane has made landfall in the US in over a decade.
Maybe you also know that when you increase the temperature of the higher latitudes, you decrease many measures of extreme weather because the meridional temperature disparity is more balanced and the atmosphere does not have to work as hard to try to accomplish that?
If you didn’t know……..now you do.
I’ll bet for sure that you know that heavy rains and flooding have increased. That one really has happened. When you warm the atmosphere and oceans, the precipital water in the atmosphere goes up.
So now you can Weigh the massive benefits to increasing CO2 vs the increase in flooding………and if you want, the 1 inch per decade of sea level rise that was already happening.
Too funny to comment. The missing hot spot, the missing sea level acceleration, all the failed predictions. Maybe attributing things man-made was a bit premature. Maybe expecting a disaster is also premature.
You are not hilarious. You are a sad chap. The sea level rise in Florida totally lacks correlation with CO2 emissions. Your theory is bunk.
If we were on our way down to a Stadial Period your comment would be correct. So I ask of you, what do you think sea level should be doing during an Interstadial Period?
MSJ,
You said, “Land ice melting due to rising temperature.” While it has a component of truth, the ice will only melt if the temperature goes above freezing. However, a decrease in cloudiness can result in increased glacier melting even if the temperature 2 meters above the ground is still below freezing. Glaciers are complex dynamic systems that wax and wane due to many factors. Temperature isn’t the only factor.
You also stated, “Ocean water expansion (thermal expansion) due to rising temperature.” Again, a partial truth. Yes, water will expand when it warms, but glacial melting, contributes as noted above. Also, depletion of ground water for agriculture will contribute to rising oceans. Something that is rarely mentioned is that sediments carried into the ocean by rivers will displace water and cause sea level to rise.
You also said, “And the cause of rising temperatures is widely accepted in the scientific world as being due to humans.” Just because it is “widely accepted” doesn’t make it true!
Bear is right. You are ignorant.
Clyde says: ” Just because it is “widely accepted” doesn’t make it true! ”
…
You can cling to the minority opinion until the cows come home, that doesn’t make your opinion “true” either.
Clyde, you and Bear are two peas in a pod……neither of which has a clue.
The book’s subtitle should be: An Inconvenient Sequel: Sooth to Power,
As soon as I learned Dr..Spencer wrote this book I bought the Kindle version. Very well written and erudite. Well reasoned and easy to understand. I am only about 25% of the way through it but believe I have got my money’s worth already. I recommend it.
There seems to be a typo in the value of the slope in the graph for sea level rise. Slope is 19.2mm not 1.92mm/decade, right?
It’s 1.92 centimeters, not mm. The ‘cm’ is missing; that’s the typo.
I am surprised Dr. Spencer would want to waste his time reviewing this, as expected, drivel from Gore. Cudos to you for doing so and further exposing the fake science behind the alarmism.
I don’t use e books, so when will print copies be available?
Do you read documents online?
I, for one, never read an ebook. If I want a book, I want it on paper. For several reasons.
The first is I hate my Apple. I prefer reading ink on paper. I don’t want to support the ebook framework, which is designed to steal my personal data. A text file would be OK, PDF not so much. A closed-format file in a reader installed with ‘a permission to use’ on a device I don’t really control, is a strict no-no.
I’m also planning to completely separate web and cell-phone use, as most cell phones give applications (third parties) access to personal data I don’t want to share.
Not to worry, according to box office MOJO, Monday/Tuesday they averaged $103/$127 per theater for 514 theaters showing that movie. Figuring 10 dollars a ticket and four showings a day, that would put around 2-3 people in each theater for each showing. Time to dump the farce of a movie.
Maybe he should give the tickets out for free like the “Climate Hustle” did.
Leapt to download to my kindle. VG value on Amazon
Dr. Spencer, please write an e-book about the Gilbert Islands. They have been in the news again because swampland (a natural part of atoll islands), filled in to be habitable and now over-populated, is now…well…being reswamped again as Mother Nature takes back what was once hers. Maybe call it “Atoll Islands-Not A Home Away From Home”.
Immediately purchased the Kindle ebook from Amazon.co.uk and am looking forward to reading it.
I wonder if Al can explain cataclysmic events like this? I doubt the paleo peoples of the Northern hemisphere were driving SUV’s back then. Anyone in NYC to Montreal to Syracuse can see the physical evidence of multiple glacial advances and retreats over thousands of years. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/the-great-flood-of-new-york
GOOD JOB DR SPENCER. ABOUT TIME SOMEONE STOOD UP TO AL GORES LIES