Preparing for Al Gore’s Lecture at Rice University

By Andy May

I have a ticket to Al Gore’s global warming lecture at Rice University on October 23 and plan to attend, I’m very curious about what he will say. The announcement says he will take questions, so I’ve scoured his web site to get ideas for a question should I have the opportunity.

His scientific credentials are thin, The Washington Times, after viewing Al Gore’s Harvard Transcript as released by the Washington Post, concluded that Al Gore was a slow learner in college, especially in science. Notably, he received a D and C- in his natural science college courses and avoided all math and logic courses. So, it would seem he is poorly prepared to lecture us on climate science, the questions will have to be simple, we cannot get into the weeds.


From the NOAA NSIDC World Glacier Inventory

Al Gore’s web site states that he founded “The Climate Reality Project” in 2005. This is a non-profit organization “devoted to solving the climate crisis.” So, what is the “climate crisis” according to Al Gore? They have many slick e-books that you can download from their web site, including “The 12 Questions” and “Climate 101,” these documents give the following reasons.

What is the climate crisis?

  1. Global temperatures are rising.
  2. More frequent and more devastating storms, floods, droughts, etc.
  3. Glaciers melting at a “record” pace.
  4. Rising sea level.

What is the cause of climate change?

Al Gore believes it is primarily man-made carbon dioxide due to burning fossil fuels, although methane emissions and deforestation play a role. He offers no evidence that this is the case other than “Scientists are crystal clear about the relationship between carbon pollution and climate change.”

Potential question:

Mr. Gore, current carbon dioxide levels are 0.04% of the atmosphere, if we double the amount, to 0.08%. How can such a small change in atmospheric composition have such a dramatic effect, given that 99.9% of the thermal energy on the surface of the Earth is in the oceans?

These ideas are asserted in his documents and no evidence is presented. Instead, he claims oil and gas companies and their minions are “attacking” the science of climate. This is as if science were a thing that can be attacked, rather than a process and a method of learning. A critical part of science is actively trying to disprove any proposed idea or theory, regardless of its popularity. Thus, “attacks,” if we may use this word, are an essential part of the scientific method. It is this extremely unscientific idea that climate change is an unassailable, pristine and perfect law of nature, that rankles me, as a scientist, the most.

But, then, Al Gore is not a scientist, either by training, experience, or education. When Al Gore went to college, climate was studied by geologists and meteorologists, it was a sleepy field in those days. I have always suspected that the field “Climate Science” was invented to exclude geologists and meteorologists from it, since they were the only scientists who knew anything about it.

How certain are scientists that climate change is man-made and dangerous?

The evidence (the links are Al Gore’s links)?

  1. “Over 97 percent of climate scientists …”
  2. “18 different major scientific associations wrote …”
  3. Climate scientists have estimated the planet has previously taken around 5,000 years to recover – by warming between 4-7 degrees Celsius – after an ice age has ended.”
  4. “In the twentieth century alone, the average surface temperature increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius – a rate eight times faster than a typical post-ice-age-recovery. And this cycle is rapidly accelerating.”

The first two are “appeals to authority” and easily dismissed. The reference for the first is Cook, et al. (2013). Refutations of the 97% consensus myth are numerous and conclusive, we won’t spend time on these statements other than to recommend the interested reader read Legates, et al., 2013, Legates et al.(2), 2013 and the WSJ article by Bast and Spencer here. Legates, et al.(2) make the following point that is important here:

“Science education must be such that students can, in fact, argue successfully why they believe what they believe. Understanding what is not known and why must be an essential component of that education. Simple recitation of facts coupled with the demonization of any position or person who disagrees with a singularly-derived conclusion does not develop critical thinking and has no place in education. Students cannot learn the scientific method or critical thinking, nor will they benefit until they have learned to examine all scientific evidence without fear or prejudice.”

Item #3 is more scientific and can be checked. We should also point out that technically we are still in an ice age, in item 3 I think they are referring to the last glacial maximum (or “glacial”) within the current ice age. Figure 1 is a temperature reconstruction (see here for more details) that relies mostly on marine temperature proxies, thus it reflects shallow global ocean temperature changes. 99.9% of the Earth’s surface thermal energy is in the oceans and less than 0.1% is in the atmosphere so ocean temperatures are a good way to track long-range global temperature changes. The Earth has been in its fourth major ice age, since the dawn of complex life 600 million years ago, for the past 2.6 million years (see figure 7 here and the discussion). Our current cold period is named the Quaternary. During the Quaternary there have been many periods of glacial advances and retreats, the most recent glacial advance ended about 11,700 years ago when we entered the current interglacial warm period, the “Holocene.”

Figure 1 starts on the left-hand side at the beginning of the Holocene with a temperature anomaly of -1.5°C and reaches a peak of +0.5°C about 1,700 years later. This increase of 2°C occurs near the middle of the warm Holocene Thermal Optimum (HCO). After the 5.9 kyr event (3,900 BC) temperatures begin a long decline. This change from the warm HCO to the Neoglacial decline is called the Mid-Holocene transition (MDT). The coldest point, since the beginning of the Holocene, is reached in the Little Ice Age (LIA) about 400 years ago. Besides noting the major periods in the Holocene, we’ve also labeled the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period (RWP), the end of Bronze Age cold period, the 4.2 Kyr cold period, the 5.9 kyr cold period (at the MDT, when the Sahara began to become a desert), the 8.2 kyr event (a time of great human migration), and the 10.3 kyr event (this is Javier’s B-5 event). Thus, the Earth recovered from the most recent glacial advance in about 1,700 years by warming about 2°C. The warming is somewhat jerky, and there are periods where the average temperature rises or falls 0.5°C or more in less than 100 years.

Figure 1 (Data source here)

Figure 2 shows the Northern Hemisphere reconstruction, using mostly marine temperature proxies, and Vinther et al.’s Greenland reconstruction using airborne ice-core proxies. The Northern Hemisphere temperatures increase more slowly than the world temperatures due to the effect of melting glaciers. It takes the same amount of thermal energy to melt ice (80 calories for 1g) as it does to raise the temperature of liquid water 80°C (80 calories for 1g, see figure 4 here). In the Northern Hemisphere it takes about 5,000 years to reach the highest Holocene Thermal Optimum temperature anomaly of 1.5°C, from a glacial period low of less than -3°C. Either the Northern Hemisphere reconstruction or the Greenland (Vinther et al., 2009, Nature) reconstruction were probably what Gore’s web site was referring to, although they explicitly say “the planet.” The global average temperature change was less, but it was more rapid, since the Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean and ocean ice melts faster than land-based ice. Figure 2 also shows a decline of 4°C from the peak temperatures of the Holocene Thermal Optimum to the low point seen 400 years ago during the Little Ice Age. Even today, we have not fully recovered from the bitter cold of that period when the Thames River and New York Harbor froze (1779) and fur coats were needed in Cairo. These critical facts are not mentioned on Gore’s web site.

Figure 2 (Source here)

As for Gore’s fourth point, the 0.8°C can be seen in both figure 1 and figure 2, but if the whole record of the Holocene is considered, it is not unusual, many similar temperature increases are seen in the records. As for the claimed recent acceleration in temperatures, it is not apparent in the satellite record shown in figure 3.

Figure 3, source: Dr. John Christy’s testimony to the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology committee, 29 March 2017.

In figure 3 satellite tropospheric temperatures are compared to independent weather balloon tropospheric temperature measurements. In addition, Dr. Christy shows the major world weather center “reanalysis” composite temperatures for the troposphere as purple diamonds. This latter estimate combines many sources of air temperature, including satellite and weather balloon data. We can see that temperatures increase from the early 1980’s to 2003 by about 0.35°C and then flatten out for the next 13 years. They do tic up a bit in 2014-1016 due to the recent El Nino, but there is no other sign of any “acceleration.” Dr. Christy also compares these observations with the Climate Models, which are used to predict the climate effects of human carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and other human activities. As we can easily see, the models consistently over-estimate temperatures.

Potential questions:

Mr. Gore, Dr. Christy has shown that the climate models used today predict higher temperatures than have been observed. Is this because they overestimate man’s effect on global temperatures?

Mr. Gore, The IPCC computed the human component of global warming by comparing climate model predictions of natural climate to predictions of climate that included natural plus human activities. If climate models cannot successfully predict global temperatures, how can this calculation, of human influence, be accurate?

Mr. Gore, The IPCC computed the human component of global warming by comparing climate model predictions of natural climate to predictions of climate that included natural plus human activities. This is obliquely referenced in “12 Questions,” and then you state “it’s clear that man-made carbon dioxide pollution is overwhelming responsible for the global warming we’re experiencing now.” Are there any direct measurements of the human impact on the Earth’s climate aside from simple suggestions that it might exist, like laboratory measurements?

The web site’s ebook “Climate 101” has a chapter discussing how we know we are causing global warming. Here we address that section.

Mr. Gore, your web site has a graphic (from Skeptical Science) entitled “How we know we’re causing global warming.” Yet, all the evidence presented on the graphic is simply proof that either the planet is warming or that fossil fuel carbon dioxide is increasing. None of the evidence suggests these two are linked. How do you link the two? Why couldn’t the warming since the very cold Little Ice Age simply be a natural recovery from an extended cold spell?

Mr. Gore, your web site states that “Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred in the twenty-first century.” At most the record only goes back to 1880, at the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period since the beginning of the Holocene, so even if this assertion is true, why is this significant?

Mr. Gore, your web site states that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shrunk. Yet, NASA has reported that Antarctic sea ice reached a new maximum extent in both 2012 and 2014. They have also reported, in 2015, that the total ice volume in Antarctica is increasing. In “12 questions” you argue that land ice and sea ice are different, yet NASA says both are increasing in Antarctica. Do you want to comment on this?

Mr. Gore, your web site states that sea level rise is accelerating. No evidence is given to support that assertion, is there any evidence that the normal rate of sea level rise observed as we come out of the Little Ice Age is increasing? Global sea level data does not appear to show an increasing trend.

Mr. Gore, your web site states that ocean temperatures have increased 0.3°. No reference for this number is given. Yet the JAMSTEC Argo and Triton data for 2000-2014 only show an increase of 0.07°C for the ocean to its average depth of 3,688 meters, assuming the temperature at 3688 meters is zero. The actual measurements are to 2,000 meters and the temperature for the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean has only increased 0.13°C. Were you referring to the whole ocean, or only the upper ocean? Are the units Fahrenheit?

The web site’s ebooks “Climate 101” and “12 questions” discuss why we should care about global warming.

Mr. Gore, your web site states that “… we’re already starting to see what a warmer world has in store for us. Intense rainstorms, severe droughts, and heat waves are becoming more frequent. Rising seas are damaging homes near the water. Some populations of animals are starting to die out. And that’s just 0.8 degrees!” Yet, Roger Pielke Jr. stated before the House Science committee on 29 March 2017 that:

There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events – specifically, hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes – and their economic damage have increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact, since 2013 the world and the United States have had a remarkable stretch of good fortune with respect to extreme weather, as compared to the past.”

He has also written more here. Do you wish to explain the difference in these statements? The IPCC also see no correlation between extreme weather and climate change.

Mr. Gore, your web site states that “flooding … [is] swallowing entire islands. The link is broken, can you identify the islands that are being swallowed? Many recent claims of “sinking islands” have later been proven false.

Mr. Gore, your website states that human’s release 100 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. If true, why is this not a good thing? The only measured effect of additional carbon dioxide on the Earth is the addition of global vegetated area on the Earth according to Zhu, et al., 2016 in Nature Climate Change. NASA reports that that the “greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” How is significant greening of the planet a bad thing?


There are many more misleading, or simply false statements on the web site, but these were the ones that stood out. I avoided the “economics of climate change” statements since that always devolves to arguing whose “fantasy” numbers are correct. Economic predictions are shaky enough without adding shaky climate predictions to the mix, let’s not move one more dimension from reality.

Al Gore is not a scientist, but due to his popularity we must pay attention to him and address his assertions. If I get a chance to ask a question after his presentation, I would like it to be easily understandable and get to the root of the speculation that human activities dominate climate change. Help in choosing a question or suggestions of new questions are welcome.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Joel Snider

Hey Andy, since it’s topical, you oughta ask him why Tipper left him – if it maybe had anything to do with that masseuse in Portland Oregon that he tried to rape.
Also ask him if he got any of Harvey’s money.


All questions will be screened first. Mark my words. Yours will not be answered due to the huge volume.

michael hart

Agreed, Mick.
I would not even attempt to ask him a technical question about the science. He would, in any case, just bat it away with “97%, blah, blah, blah…”
I would ask him a practical question about the politics of China and India and Brazil and…all the rest. Whatever Gore may assert about the Paris agreement, these countries have agreed to do precisely nothing that will seriously inconvenience them. Their trajectory is broadly development along Western lines, so the CO2 goals will not be achieved. Ever. We cannot afford to pay these countries to do otherwise. Nor can we make them do otherwise. And, in any case, they have the moral high-ground.
The Paris agreement is an exercise in utter, utter political futility, whatever Gore may say. It’s only achievable goal is economic self-flagellation and collapse. The world is not actually in such dire straits as these conference-organizers would like us to believe. Getting the world’s politicians to acknowledge that would be a triumph. Then, maybe, more of our energies might be directed towards useful and achievable goals.


Mr. Gore, we appreciate your expertise in man-caused global warming and subsequent winning of the Nobel Prize. What were your grades in your natural science college courses?


“All questions will be screened first.”
well that’s surely the case but even so:
” Al Gore is not a scientist, either by training, experience, or education.”
so why would anybody ask him a science question?


“18 different major scientific associations wrote …”

how many of those associations held vote of members they claim to represent

“Climate scientists have estimated the planet has previously taken around 5,000 years to recover – by warming between 4-7 degrees Celsius – after an ice age has ended.”

why does he call this a “recovery”? The normal state of the climate now is glaciation. It is the current mild intergalcial which unusual. In the geologically near future Earth will “recover” to its normal glaciated state and will rid itself of the scourge of humanity.

“In the twentieth century alone, the average surface temperature increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius – a rate eight times faster than a typical post-ice-age-recovery. And this cycle is rapidly accelerating.”

Again it’s not a “recovery” it’s an anomaly but this is stupid apples to oranges comparison. You need to compare to warming periods of similar length: ie a century, not 5000 years. Surface temps can change by 20 in a matter of hours. That tells us nothing either.
If you get a chance, ask him if he’s still pissed about losing the election to Bush. Is that why he is out to destroy oil businesses and take vengeance on the electorate?


Once you get hold of the microphone, you can ask what you want.


I would be tempted to invoke Karl Popper, (who Big Al will have never heard of), and test the validity of the hypothesis “Global Warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2” by asking Big Al how come the predicted warming is so far from the empirical (as shown in your Fig 3).


You need to see whether you can reject the null hypothesis that GW is NOT caused by CO2.
BTW Gore probably thinks that Karl Popper was a famous 19th century anal ventriloquist.


The Null hypothesis is that climate change is natural and happens regularly.
The only way to reject the null hypothesis is to find one that can be supported empirically.


Arguing with Al Gore is like playing chess with a pigeon; it’s going to strut around, knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and squawk that it won! Or to put it another way, you can’t have a rational discussion with a person committed to irrationality.

Pop Piasa

That statement is golden, bro.

Pop Piasa

If you number the squares on the chessboard, you can sell chances for the “pigeon drop” and make money while Al does his thing.


ask him about the science behind his chakras
” There are seven key points in the subtle body that are thought to be vortexes of energy, known as chakras. When energy becomes blocked in a chakra, it triggers physical, mental, or emotional imbalances that manifest in symptoms such as anxiety, lethargy, or poor digestion.”
should they be released on an unsuspecting world?


Just ask him how much money he has made out of the global warming scam and why he is adding more greenhouse gases by travelling to the lecture when he could just do it by Skype


There are so many possible questions from which to choose, that I don’t envy you having to select just one. Maybe pick three, in case someone else asks one or two of them.
Since Gore has asked, “What else can it be (causing Arctic sea ice decline)?”, I’d consider asking about the fact that it has increased since 2012 and stayed flat on average since 2007. This was the first year since 1979 in which no new low was set within five years.
And why did Antarctic sea ice grow from 1979 to 2014?
His iconic Kilimanjaro ice also offers rich pickings.


1) Why are the early 30th century warming and late 20th century warming cycles practically identical, despite cleaner air in the industrialized world after the 1970s?
2) Why did earth cool dramatically from the 1940s until 1977, when the PDO flipped, despite rising CO2?
3) If, as seems in evidence, climate sensitivity is actually in the range of 0.0 to 2.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2, rather than 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, as asserted by IPCC without evidence, what’s the worry?
4) Since previous warm intervals in the Holocene have all been hotter than the Current Warm Period, what’s the problem? Ditto the previous interglacial, the Eemian, and others before it during the Pleistocene? Especially since sea level rise hasn’t accelerated in recent decades above its average since the end of the LIA.


“Why are the early 30th century warming and late 20th century warming cycles practically identical”
I’m hoping you meant early 21st century. If not, can I borrow your time machine when you aren’t using it?


Typo for 20th.
Although in the 30th century, we’ll also probably be in a warming cycle. It will just be cooler than the current one.
They occur at about millennial intervals:
Holocene Optimum: Ended ~5 Ka.
Egyptian Warm Period: Peak ~4 Ka.
Minoan WP: ~3 Ka.
Roman WP: ~2 Ka.
Medieval WP: ~1 Ka.
Current WP: 0 Ka (although maybe not yet peak)
Next WP: ~ 1 K years in the future.


By 30th century , Earth will almost certainly be in the depths of a full glaciation unless we release all the CO2 we can find !

Covered the truth about Kilimanjaro in essay The Snows of Kilimanjaro. Root cause is illegal logging which has removed over 90% of the cloud forest below the summit (leaving now grass covered slopes) and 35% of the montaine forest below that. Result is much lower summit updraft humidity, so more rapid sublimation. Summit doesn’t melt even in summer, too high and cold.


And the ice retreat has stopped, since there is little forest left to cut and it’s better protected now.

Pop Piasa

Now there’s an ecology cause worth backing, restoring Kilimanjaro’s pristine state for progeny.



Pop Piasa

Wonder how many times he’ll repeat that word in his lecture…


His reply to every question, assuming you are permitted more than one, will be to tell you are a D*nier.


The Gore will answer: “DENIER! Next, question please.”

Andy: Why did Al assert polar bears were endangered by disappearing Arctic summer sea ice when (a) it hasn’t disappeared and (b) polar bears do most of their feeding on spring ice during the seal whelping season.


“polar bears do most of their feeding on spring ice”
In large numbers too on dry land……….


Darn the facts, full speed ahead!!!


Preparing for Al Gore lecture:
1. Get ready to empty the bank vaults
2. Buy out the nearest Dunkin Donuts store.
3. Warn the red-light district

Steve from Rockwood

4. Buy a parka.


lus lots.
the Gore effect is – it appears – real.#
Snow shoes, too.
A question –
To help our audience, to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, how much Carbon Dioxide – CO2, you call it the fatal gas [check CHECK] – is there in the Earth’s atmosphere today?


PLUS lots
An edit within three minutes feature would be lovely!
Auto – another of my errors.

Richard Kiser

Maybe, How has climate change affected his personal chakras?


Every historic temp reconstruction show temps falling, why would anyone try to make it colder?

Pop Piasa

When you adjust the past colder, the present seems warmer.


A previous Fat Albert Q&A before a friendly audience:


There’s so few of them left the entire global population is now herded together for mutual protection.


Al Gore’s answer about the court ruling was highly misleading since the Judge DID rule there were numerous errors in his so called documentary.
He is a flaming coward to openly discuss the issues with anyone who doesn’t lick his shoes.

DeLoss McKnight

I would not mention Judith Curry or Roger Pielke in your question. If you do, he will simply state that they are a denier, skip the rest of your question and move on to the next questioner.

If you go down ANY line of questioning directly related to the science, he’ll shut you down. He’ll either appeal to authority (97% blah blah blah) or call you a deni*r.
May I suggest a different approach? Use science by authority. Bring up United Nations IPCC AR5 as the authoritative source on climate change, then ask about the following quote from Chapter 10 WG2
Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change. {10.10}
Question: Mr. Gore, given that the IPCC says that the impact of climate change to these things is small in comparison to climate change, why are we treating climate change as the number one threat to our well being by orders of magnitude when the best climate science in the world says it isn’t?

Sigh. I should not comment until the 2nd cup of coffee is fully ingested. The question should read:
Question: Mr. Gore, given that the IPCC says that the impact of these things is large in comparison to climate change, why are we treating climate change as the number one threat to our well being when the best climate science in the world says it isn’t?
Page 662, 2nd paragraph in case you want to document it straight from the source instead of from my quote.


Be prepared if need be to point out quickly how the bogus 97% figure was derived in Zimmerman’s survey, and to mention the world-leading scientists who are skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.
It’s based upon 75 out if 79 (94.9%) cherry-picked “actively publishing climate scientists” out of more than 3000 government and academic (not private sector) scientists who responded from the over 10,000 queried. All other groups of scientists answered both questions* “yes” at lower rates. IIRC only 47% of the category of “economic geologists” answered both “yes”. And there was not third question, ie “Is warming good or bad?”
*Has earth warmed since c. AD 1850? If so, has this warming been caused significantly by human activities? Or questions to those effects.


Mr. Gore, the great sceptical climate website WUWT had 330 million views as of Oct. 2017 in the past 10 (?) years. Those hundreds of million climate interested people
all over the world are wrong ? And count less than your number “97% of scientists”?


…..this is “appeal to authority” of the people….


and he could say ‘well some of those visitors to the site are me.. and get a laugh at your expense.

Rhoda R

Andy, I suspect that you will have to submit your question ahead of time. There is no way that Al Gore is going to run the risk of having to answer a real question. Good luck. And, please let us know how it went even if you are not allowed to ask any question.

True. Which is why submit a softball question with a softball follow up question. Even go to the trouble of wording it so that the preamble sounds about the same as your actual question, one that he can knock out of the park so will be more interested in letting you have the microphone. The goal is to get the microphone, and then say what you want before they can cut you off.

Thomas Homer

Mr. Gore, do you recognize that Carbon Based Life Forms require Carbon?
Mr. Gore, do you recognize that Carbon Dioxide is necessary for the Carbon Cycle of Life to complete?


Has the pronounced greening of the planet thanks to a fourth molecule of CO2 in 10,000 dry air molecules over the past century been good for plants and other living things?


Why has there been no warming at the South Pole?
The air there is so dry that the effect of more CO2 should be most pronounced there, since the most important GHG, H2O, isn’t there to slow radiation to space. Yet, since records have been kept there, there has been no warming.


Why has the surface supposedly warmed more rapidly and more than the atmosphere, when the AGW hypothesis requires just the opposite?
Why is there no tropical tropospheric hot spot, as predicted by the GCMs?

D. J. Hawkins

You have many excellent questions. They are far too long, for the most part. In verbal communication, if you go past about 20 words you exceed the capacity of most people to hold the premises and linkages in mind while they formulate an answer. For Al, the limit might be 5.


A shorter one, then:
Why, when camping in the desert, do you fry by day and freeze by night, when the CO2 level is unchanged?

Bruce Cobb

Al Gore is the biggest, baddest Climate Liar on this planet, so don’t expect an honest answer to your question. And the closer to home it hits, the more likely it is he will bring out the “d” word, and otherwise attack the questioner. That is his MO.


Well, that’s the problem with religions that keep making testable predictions.

Tony Pearce

On a recent cruise into Glacier Bay in Alaska we were given a map that showed that in 1860 the bay was a complete glacier more than 1000 metres deep and some 10 km wide. The map shows the huge decrease over the centuries to the now cruisable bay. Why the enormous concern with so called climate change just now and what caused the previous huge melts?


I tend not to consider global temperature very relevant. Slightly more meaningful are those for N. Hemisphere land where the most of the humans live.
I’ve got a surprise to see that during last thirty years N.H. land temperature has risen full 1.5 degrees C.
This may be, or may be not correct, but what is true is that since1.5 degrees C rise has past only just noticeable, the next 0.5 degree C will not be a catastrophic for billions of people who live on the land in the N. Hemisphere.
Note: No pause in the temperature for the most of humanity. Oh well….


CRUTEM is a pack of lies.


not much difference in Giss data, I have to look at NOAA, but I suspect might be the same. They all use the same raw data then in house processing system, in the end they all get much of muchness.


NOAA’s Karlized SST “data” are the worst of the worst.


Designed especially for the Paris talks, as “Pausebuster” “corrections”.


They ought to just stick with the raw data, and quit manipulating it into a fantasy Hockey Stick chart.


Reality for NH Landcomment image
(lines hand drawn for indication only)
One large step warming at the 1998 El Nino. Real warming maybe 0.4C once recent El Nino spike is removed.

Steve Case

Tell him that oceans inundating coastal cities is one of the more compelling issues of Climate Change.
Tell him that the popular press often quotes a meter or more of sea level rise by 2100.
Tell him that’s an average rate of nearly 12 mm/yr for the next 87 years.
Tell him that the satellite data says the is rate less than a third of that today.
Ask him when that rate is projected to attain that increased rate?


At least al has learned not to give talks anywhere near where it could snow?


When did the climate start changing? Billions of years ago? Millions of years ago? When Rockefeller started pumping oil out of the ground?
Do you believe that photosynthesis is necessary for life on earth? Is there a minimum level of CO2 required for life on earth to continue?
Scientists have studied the satellite photos of earth and determined during the satellite era the amount of greenery on earth is up 11-14%. Do you agree with the scientists that most of this is due to increased CO2 levels?


When did the climate start changing? Billions of years ago? Millions of years ago? When Rockefeller started pumping oil out of the ground?
Do you believe that photosynthesis is necessary for life on earth? Is there a minimum level of CO2 required for life on earth to continue?
Scientists have studied the satellite photos of earth and determined during the satellite era the amount of greenery on earth is up 11-14%. Do you agree with the scientists that most of this is due to increased CO2 levels?


Ask him to comment on the 600-800 year phase lag in the Vostok ice cores (the record consistently shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes), and why he didn’t mention this in his first movie (it was known at that time)?


Recent paper says no lag between T and CO2—changes approximately simultaneous. So no unambiguous evidence for causation.


That’s wrong. Some studies say the lag is 2000 to 3000 years, and I agree, having looked at ALL the data points.


Pick your best question and ask it first since anything you ask will get you labeled a ‘denier’ and ignored from that point in.


Also ask him why co-rising temp & CO2 in the 1990s was significant, when temps rose faster with flat CO2 in the 1930s, and CO2 rose fast with dropping temps in the 1970s.

Jack DuBrul

Where’s the “hot spot” the models say must be in the troposphere for their theory to be correct?


Hot spot should occur with any warming, not just GHG driven warming. But the models predict a robust hot spot which is not observed (Santer et al 2005). Short term hotspots are observed but not the expected long term hot spot. Sherwood et al 2008 did torture the data statistically to find a hot spot, but a “robust” hot spot shouldn’t be that hard to find. So this model/data bust does not disprove AGW, but may suggest a fundamental problem with the models.


Two simple questions to ask.
1: What is the temperature of the earth?
2: What temperature should it be?


I’ll buy the second one, forget the first. This is something that should be asked of every believer –
What do you consider the ideal temperature for the earth?
That should lead to some review of that belief..

Tom Halla

I would ask why, if it is not yet as warm as the Roman or Minoan warm periods, why is there such concern? And what were the consequences of that warming? But Algore will certainly screen questions, and only “answer” those he has a canned response to.


“The IPCC also see no correlation between extreme weather and climate change.”. I believe that NASA also says there is no detectable correlation between extreme weather and climate change, so you might want to add that fact to the question.


You might ask him about his Carbon Footprint. How does it compare to the people in this room? Or is it greater than all the people in the room put together?
I would like to ask him how much has profited in the last decade by promoting his Global Warming Scam.


There goes the student activity fee money. The same thing happens with Hillary and Bill Nye.

Michael Jankowski

Way-back-when (sometime after the 2000 election), Gore gave lectures at my alma mater (Columbia). You were not even allowed to bring anything into the classroom that could be used to take notes with.


Well your first mistake is behaving like a normal honest human being and posting this piece on a publicly accessible site and asking for advice. Doing so will allow Al Gore’s minions to identify you and ensure that you are prevented from getting anywhere near a microphone. I hope that I am wrong. It is possible as Gore is clearly not all that bright but his money allows him to hire bright people.


Compared to the current interglacial period, the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet Mankind did not burn fossil fuels during those times. What caused the Eemian, and could that same cause be affecting our climate today?
The lapse rate is really a measure of the insulating properties of the atmosphere. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. Why?
An important part of the AGW conjecture is that more H2O in the atmosphere adds to warming because H2O is a greenhouse gas and in fact it is the primary greenhouse gas. Yet adding more H2O to the atmosphere lowers the over all lapse rate, a cooling effect, as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. How can one still claim that more CO2 causing more H2O to enter the atmosphere is a positive feedback when the fact is that more H2O causes cooling?
I can only assume that Mr. Gore will dispute any facts that you might base your question on and then would refer to the “scientific consensus” on the matter despite the fact that sceintists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture as if it would make a difference anyway.


You could ask him why he believes that we should attribute any increases to the number of hurricanes or their severity to the increase in global temperatures when both NOAA and the UN IPCC have have stated that at this time it is not possible to distinguish between human influences and natural cycles with regards to either of these.


Sorry missed that this has already been suggested. My eyes get crossed sometimes at my age.


Sorry missed that this has already been suggested. My eyes get crossed sometimes at my age.


Forget the science and math, ask an economics question: “If temperature increases are < 2.0 degrees above pre-industrial era, is the increased CO2 a net benefit for society?"

Brian demas

Going to see al gore would be as interesting as watching a repeat of his boring and non factual INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Save your time and money and stay at home and try to find a fool to buy your ticket.
AL GORE is a bafoon and a CON MAN who tried to CON the world with his garbage .
The day will come when AL GORE will be exposed as a oppertunist that stands to gain billions of dollars

I Came I Saw I Left

In a staged setting like that nothing you ask will have any impact IMO. Better to just shout out at some point that he’s a fraud and a poser whose claims and predictions contradict reality at every turn, and the people in the audience are a bunch of mindless cultists.

Mary Brown

Hand out sheets of data from standard sources to people coming in and out. Extreme weather, sea level, ice age of the 1970s… that kind of stuff.


maybe just ask Al :-
“what are you going to do when you`r finally proven wrong, which a lot of scientific data and research suggests”
in other words `my belief systems is better than your belief system`


Oh, best question…
“How much money have you made off of Global Warming”


If you’re going to ask him why the models are running hot, don’t use that Christy graph…he’s too well -known a skeptic, Gore will just shut you down on an ad hom. Instead refer to the Meers’ RSS graph comparing model runs vs mid tropospheric satellite T data ( . Almost as good to show the models running hot, plus based on a completely independently measured dataset than the hot surface data which is what he’ll be relying on. Obviously no time to go into all the surface data issues in your question but you can mention the far more complete satellite coverage. Meers is a well known warmists and recently warmed his data interpretation as much as he could with honesty, but is too good a scientist to fudge it completely.


Have you ever seen a politician answer a question that he or she did not want to be asked?
No…I didn’t think so!
Even monkeys can be taught to do a few things really well. Al’s daddy trained Al to be a politician. He does that really well. He is very good at dodging questions he doesn’t want to be asked. I would warn Andy May that he cannot win at Al Gore’s game. There are no combinations of clever words that will trip up the Gorical, just as long as he has his typical audience of neophytes fawning over every word he says. This is a theatrical production. Nothing more. Andy will not be perceived as a thoughtful seeker of truth, but as a disruptive audience member ruining the show for everyone else.

Ask Al something easy…Like the scare tactics and pictures about the Polar Bears. Go to the Candian Polar Bear group site, who state how well the bear population is doing, and that their fall in numbers was really because of over hunting. Now that the hunting issue has been handled, they have rebounded very nicely, partly due to increase CO2’… Just a thought


Also, would not bring up the Antarctic sea ice—ice extent went off a cliff in the last few years, probably due to the recent El Niño. (See WUWT reference pages for Antarctic sea ice.) Antarctic climate is mostly related to the ozone hole and ENSO, not AGW, but doubt Gore will be up on that. Here’s a 2014 article with some interesting observations from John Turner, of the Brit Antarctic Survey.
Turner says the observed melting of Antarctic ice sheets from beneath due to warm sea water started about 10k years ago, so predates any anthropogenic effects. Also on that subject:

Mary Brown

Sea ice broke up last year due to storminess, not warmth. Long term trend (1979) remains up. Land ice mass is steady or slowly rising. Temps steady of slowly cooling.

” Long term trend (1979) remains up”
LOL @ Mary:


Mary is clearly referring to Antarctic sea ice extent.
The melt last boreal spring was from freak WX events.

Mary Brown

Yes…referring to Antarctica sea ice… trending higher despite last year’s storm related sea ice breakup


Algore is a scientific illiterate. Any question relying on scientific thought will be blown off. Any question using or requiring numbers will lose the audience. Something simple like: “Many more people die from cold weather than from heat waves; why would a slightly warmer earth be a bad thing?”


Easy…flooded coastlines, extreme weather.

Mike McMillan

“Over 97 percent of climate scientists …”
This can be refuted even without exposing the bogus sources. Anyone on this site can gin up a list of 30 non-warmista climate scientists. Can Al Gore generate a list of 970 true believers?
“In the twentieth century alone, the average surface temperature increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius – a rate eight times faster than a typical post-ice-age-recovery. And this cycle is rapidly accelerating.”
Again we pull up Frank Lansner’s chart of all the interglacial warming stretches, how high they went and how long they lasted. We are smack-dab in the middle.


Thanks, that’s the point I was trying to make above, Comparing 5000 change to 100 change is apples and oranges.
Kudos to Frank for doing the hard work and digging this out.

Appeal to his hubris – “Now that we’ve been able to stop the earth’s warming; what’s our next challenge.”