Energy
More Al Gore because [insert politically incorrect joke or blog policy violation here] ~ctm
From The Daily Caller
Michael Bastasch
Former Vice President Al Gore might have won the 2000 presidential election if the temperature had been slightly higher on election day, according to a new study.
“Based on our model, an increase of only 1°C (1.8°F) may have made Al Gore the 43rd United States President instead of George W. Bush, as Gore would have won in Florida,” researchers wrote in a study published online Wednesday.
“It is often mentioned that ‘the heat is on’ during presidential campaigns, and our findings indeed clarify that temperature matters when it comes to actual voting,” wrote U.S. and European researchers.
Researchers claim they found evidence increases in state-level temperatures from one election day to the next increase voter turnout, and that warmer weather may even help incumbent parties.
“We found that increases in state-level temperatures from one election to another are related to increases in state-level voter turnout, and increases in votes for the incumbent party,” co-author Jasper Van Assche of Ghent University said in a statement.
But the authors note the overall effect of temperature on elections is “relatively small,” but could matter in close election — like the 2000 presidential election.
President George W. Bush eked out a victory against Gore in 2000 after a close recall in Florida. Had it been slightly warmer, Gore may have won, according to the study.
Interestingly enough, both Gore’s global warming films have segments dedicated to his loss in the 2000 election. Maybe more global warming would have helped?
So how credible is this study? All this writer can say is correlation does not equal causation.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank Gaia…
Someone was actually paid for this research?
FFS!!!!!!!!
My first though exactly, followed by where is the qualifier, or there it is “…may have made Al Gore…”
STFU researcher Jasper Van Assche of Ghent University and all the other “..U.S. and European researchers.” This is just more Post-Modernist propaganda completely fabricated out of whole cloth and unverifiable.
Turning off the AC on a hot day worked for Hansen …
And Tim Wirth also?
When I read ““Based on our model” I reach for my gun.
Read Asimov’s “Franchise”. Improved modeling makes actual voting unnecessary.
All academic activity has doubled since Big Brother decided research was to be purely theoretical. Output has tripled, and society benefits are a much different number than before.
The Goracle must have never heard of the Gore Effect. Did he campaign in Florida?
“Based on our model” says it all.
Breaking news!
Al Gore Might Have Beaten Bush If There Had Been More Folks Voting Democratic…
Film at 11
What’s wrong with models?
F=ma is a model. PV=nRT is a model. Needs a lot of fudge factors in the real world, but pretty functional at modelling the behaviour of most gases under changing conditions. Search ideal gas law if you are not familiar with this model. Here is another, entirely empirical. W=Wi*10*((1/P^.5)-(1/F^.5)). Works great. You have to apply the 8 fudge factors, but works great at modelling the power required by a ball mill to grind rock. Search Fred Bond work index if you are not familiar with this empirically derived model. The utility of a model is determined by its ability to predict. Climate models don’t do a very good job of predicting anything useful. As such they are mostly useless. Not because they are models, but because they are models that don’t predict. You did know that those equations you learned in high school science were models didn’t you?
The time and place where I was first exposed to F=ma, PV=nRT, etc. was in high school in the early 1960s in Washington State, and we called them formulas. In college in the mid 60s the formulas were expressed as functions; and in grad-school I was exposed to simulation & modeling using computers. So when I think of modeling – particularly in the context of climatology – I think of algorithms implemented in compute programs – not static formulas.
A formula is worlds apart from a computer model. Simple as that.
You do know that the computer is solving formulas don’t you.
The problem here, and with climate models, is that we are dealing with a chaotic system. Even the IPCC admits that climate models can’t make actual predictions because of that.
In this case, if there had been a greater increase in warming, and if Florida had actually been in danger, the other candidates would have reacted. We have no idea of who would have been the Republican candidate for instance.
With chaotic systems, like human affairs and the climate, there are so many confounding variables that precise prediction is impossible.
John,
One of your examples seems wrong to me.
“Force = mass times acceleration” is not a model, it’s a definition (unless I’m mistaken).
My understanding is that such definitions tell us nothing falsifiable (or verifiable) about the natural world. They’re purely analytic; they weren’t derived empirically, and can’t be tested empirically.
I’m not disputing the rest of your interesting comment.
Even that formula breaks down as objects approach the speed of light. I can’t think of any formulas that are always appropriate in all circumstances.
How about: 1 + 1 = 10
A model is a bird or a guy (note my PC acceptance there) strutting a catwalk, on the front of a glossy fashion magazine, or displaying their ripped bodies in a movie. They represent what filmakers imagine what we should all aspire to, and represent their illusion of reality.
Computer models are no different.
CommieBob,
something tells me you might be right:
“Even that formula breaks [F = ma] down as objects approach the speed of light.”
But remind me: what’s the correct, relativistic version?
And whatever it is, doesn’t it pose a problem for your next statement:
“I can’t think of any formulas that are always appropriate in all circumstances.”
?
Truer than you realize. All of us if we know anything, know it because we have modelled the world into a coherent picture.
Models are our only route to knowledge. That is not the problem. It is models that do not work, that is the problem.
And therein lies the fault in Left Brain thinking. Models define the reality that we experience, and define human behaviour, but they do not define whatever is the case, beyond human conception of it.
Left thinking teaches people to understand everything in terms of a righteous natural world oppressed by a class of capitalists who have taken ownership, enslaved the people and threaten to damage the world.
This is why it is so necessary for any who have wealth to spend their time virtue signalling their dedication to political correctness – the shape of the Revolution.
It is a model that is popular, because it makes small minds who want to be bigger minds feel empowered. Their failure is due to the Establishment. Marxism is ultimately the refuge of sore losers. It excuses failure, and turns it instead into resentment.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. Not to create a coherent society: it is inevitably destructive creating societies that hate themselves.
Contrast the fairy tale it replaced, of skygods That actually made people humble, and accept failure, but strive to be better. A very handy thing for civilisation to believe in.
What can you say? Jesus told kinder stories than Karl Marx, and both were lapsed Jews…?
🙂
Exactly so.
Things have taken a bad turn. In my youth we aspired to human rights and equal treatment for all. Black voters should be registered and their kids should have a good education. Women should be able to aspire to the highest offices in the land. etc. etc.
Now, the left sees everyone as an oppressed minority deserving special rights and protections. I am the oppressor because I’m a white male no matter what I do or the what are contents of my heart. That is absolutely no way to build social cohesion. It’s also corrosive to the ‘victims’ because they will blame their victimhood for everything and won’t strive to make themselves better. link
Christianity was a solid anchor for our society. Marxism doesn’t come close to being a viable replacement.
The best takedown of left brain thinking is The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. He points out that folks whose right brains are disabled have certain characteristics, the main one being that they become disconnected from reality.
commieBob
You are also an unrepresented minority in that you are a climate sceptic.
We climate sceptics deserve the same rights as all other minorities and no one should have the right to sneer at, or defame us, because of our beliefs.
Now whilst that is a tongue in cheek comment, were the liberals really concerned for the welfare of minority groups, I wouldn’t have to point this out, they should be doing it for us.
Not that I would jump on that moronic bandwagon, I’ll fight my own fight.
Good thing it hasn’t warmed since 2000!
It’s hot in Florida, hotter makes it LESS likely for people to come out. Lived there, done that.
Wyatt
You mean more people express their hitherto unrealised sexual preferences when it’s cooler?
Cool, man.
🙂
Gore might have beaten Bush if the Republicans hadn’t been able to rig the shonky US election system. Gore as president would have probably done a bit less harm than Bush as president, and a lot less harm than Gore as prophet of Man Made Global Warming.
And if Arthur was Martha he’d be my auntie.
According to today’s progressive ideology, Arthur can be Martha and your uncle can be your auntie, and as long as that is their choice you have to accept it.
Just to add some PR balance here.
Martha could be Arthur and your Uncle.
But then Robert’s your Mothers Brother which makes him Bob’s your Uncle.
Stare at the word ‘Uncle’ for a moment. What weird word, who thought of that?
Gore would have won if he had only won Tennessee which would have made Florida irrelevant, but not even people in his home state could bring themselves to vote for him.
RoHa you have it wrong if the Republicans hadn’t been able to rig the shonky US election system.
Statistical analysis of the election results from down ballot voters, extra percentage of votes for president vs not votes, and the physical improbability of creating a ‘Hanging Chad’ on a single card punch. Review states the Gorical & team took a wire punch and in a couple of counties Double Punched about 35,000 cards, most thru Al’s name, but about 5000 thru Buchanan’s name. Algore’s team just miscalculated how much he was loosing by. Great paper, but cannot refind from 2001 timeframe.
If Gore had won then “The Deplorable” voters would have come out of the woodwork several elections sooner.
(Provided the Republican nominee wasn’t another “same-old-same-same-old)
Gore as president would likely have been a weak-tea precursor to Obama, just as blindly leftist. He might or might not have bowed to Arabian potentates, but he would have done plenty of damage in other ways. His doctrinaire wrongness on climate would have cost us just as dearly as Obama’s did.
If.
Come to think of it, if there had been more warming the models might actually be somewhere close to correct.
Αɩκα! (This is Sparta, Chris. When in Rome, and all that.)
More Al Gore because [chucky (~ctm) is goring us to death]…
For those on the left, all things are political, even the weather. I guess anything to blame is better than admitting your ideas will not sell.
Another pathetic excuse, if Gore had carried his own home state he would have won. Thank the Gods he didn’t, the people of TN knew him well enough to avoid him and save us all.
But global warming causes hanging chads. Derp.
NOW she can!
Severian, you are correct.
[insert politically incorrect joke or blog policy violation here] ~ctm….ROTFL
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/07/pjimage-22-640×480.jpg
What Happened to Hillary Clinton? I’ll answer for her, since she’d likely die before she’d answer truthfully.
o I got old and frail.
o My Parkinson’s disease began to exhibit when I became tired, in spite of many people trying to help me keep my true condition hidden.
o I was tired often, and so unable to campaign in many states.
o I was unlikable, to the point many said I was officious, nasty, vindictive and bitter.
o I was selfish and controlling, and I joined with many other high Obama administration officials who conducted my official government business using a private e-mail address in violation of law.
o My only agenda was the continuation of that of my far left, socialist predecessor. Open borders, political correctness run amok, the appeasement of Islamist facists, more redistrbution, more regulations, less freedom, more power in the hands of regulators and federal bureaucrats, high rates of taxation, lower spending on military readiness, higher spending on welfare, health care, and entitlements, eternal deficits and growing debt without end, onerous energy costs due to hostility towards fossil fuels and the fiction of CO2 as a pollutant, and the normal tribal victim group identity politics of the Democratic party.
o I never articulated a personal vision for why I wanted to be president, at least not any beyond my own personal ambition, a sense of entitlement that it was “my turn.”
o I lied often. I made it clear that only a fool could possibly trust me.
o I blacked out and fell down, having my handlers catch me and carry me into my van. It’s a good thing I was catheterized or the world would have seen me wet my pants, too.
o Finally, more states voted for Donald Trump than voted for me. But it was MY TURN!
Mickey Reno,
You forgot one.
o Despite being a part of the “most transparent administration in history”, somebody exposed what I was trying to hide.
(I believe she and the MSM call that “Fake News”.)
The election is in November.
By that time, people are talking about how cold it is regardless if it is warmer than previous years.
Why are they always trying to find excuses for why their left-wing candidate didn’t win? How about the simple explanation that 51% of the voting population didn’t want them to be President. Why didn’t Hillary win? She didn’t have that other 2% or 3% that wanted her to lead. She still got a sizable number but she needed to capture another 2%.
Gore was even worse than Hillary in terms of getting the over-the-top vote which is always the question.
She needed more illegal immigrants.
Maybe if the Hollywood crowd had campaigned for her a little harder before she lost…
You know, I never considered that.
Very astute… except basically every pigpen I’ve seen, has a roof.
hmmmm !!
Deep thought needed !!
Andy, you’re conflating hogsheds with pigpens. You obviously weren’t raised on a farm.
Are you saying that pigs can’t fly, but hogs can,
hence a hogpen needs a roof so it becomes a shed ??
Sorry, I guess I’m just puzzled by all this. 😉
pighuts have rooves cos of global warming.
pigs get sunburn. They are forest dwellers
“All this writer can say is correlation does not equal causation.”
Oh, you’re no fun.
Did Bush collude with anyone/thing?
Only the NeoCons.
Hmmm. Wonder what the political models would predict on the pending downward stairsteps to a stadial cold period. It seams to me these kinds of warm-period studies are rather self-serving.
They’re all pretty sure they’ll be dead before that becomes a problem.
“Shut Up John Big Booty You Coward!”
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6fa23e64-fc53-4d51-9d77-26873cf4aab6
Go polish the tail fins John Small Berries!
Nope. I only watch horror films occasionally even if its warm.
Weatherwise, other states are very different than Florida in early November. While cold and rainy weather in more northern states might restrict voter turn out, early November weather in Florida is usually ideal for going out and about. It is highly unlikely that any election day in Florida is going to be ‘too cold’ for voting, nor would voter turn out in the Sunshine State be boosted by warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures might actually hurt voter turnout in Florida. One simply connect take what happens in other states and apply it to the very different climate of Florida.
It looks like another study that doesn’t pass the 5th grade science fair standard.
Charles,
“Al Gore Might Have Beaten Bush If There Had Been More Warming”
But would he have wanted to? The Presidency wouldn’t leave him much time to hire a mechanical cherry-picker and film a carbon-credits infomercial. Lest we forget political history:
1996: Clinton-Gore ticket wins
Vice President Gore’s last-minute blueprint for saving the atmosphere has to be postponed for another 4 years when America refuses to let him leave the White House.
Behind the scenes, Gore is said to be furious at the planet’s setback, chewing his campaign staff out for making him “so god__mn f______ likeable.”
(According to pollsters, however, the true drawcard for most Dem voters was the Clinton ’96 ticket’s law-and-order platform, Sex Molesters Should Get Four More Years.)
Sorry, Nobel-Oscar winning carbon-credits infomercial.
My wife asked, “and how much warmer would it have to have been for Hillary to have won?” My answer: “Much colder — hell freezing over.”
Looks as though Bush will need a restraining order if it gets any warmer.
If only he weren’t a lying bore.
A crying Gore
A lying bore
A socialist wh***
Oh, dear. Did that come out of me?
Pop,
You forgot one of your fellow poet, Homer’s, favorite phrases: [a pile of] smoking gore.
Doesn’t matter. All of you in the US who voted out the messiah are going pay big time!
http://www.smh.com.au/world/this-is-a-very-serious-storm-hurricane-harvey-heads-for-texas-20170824-gy3s4p.html
No matter what happens, the media will once again try to sell the ridiculous notion that the Federal Government should be able to take the disaster out of natural disasters. Since that is impossible, Trump will fail, no matter how good the response is. I am sure the media is already writing their scathing reviews.
Harvey looks to be a very bad situation. After slamming the coast near Corpus Christi tomorrow evening, it is likely to meander over Southeast Texas for almost a week! That is a nightmare scenario for flooding, making rescue and relief efforts extremely difficult. One local official in the linked article above spoke to the reality of the situation:
“Long has stressed in interviews with The Washington Post that state and local officials need to improve their emergency readiness and recognise that it is not the federal government’s responsibility alone to respond to natural disasters.
Long has also urged citizens to understand that they will often be their own first responders in a crisis.”
That is the message that emergency management has been trying to convey for decades. The national media does a huge and dangerous disservice when it implies that the Feds should be their to take care of everything, as if federal employees and vehicles are somehow immune to the high winds and flooded roads that are a disaster to everyone else. FEMA will do the best it can, and the President will have very little to do with it.
It’s just a shame that the media makes it worse with misinformation, and then tries to blame the President, who has less responsibility for the problems than they do.
Great observation jclarke. Used to be I had about 100lbs. of dried beans and enough chili powder to get me through a few weeks. Not anymore but it used to be.
Holy Cow, that was sudden. They are expecting it to make landfall as a Major Storm. Yesterday it was a tropical storm most people weren’t paying any attention to.