This flaming email was in my inbox this morning. Note the subject line. Nice to see I’ve been upgraded from “denier” to simply “unknown”.
Here’s the full text, but with the multiple links to the donation site removed:
Dear unknown,
The dirty fingerprints of the climate crisis are everywhere you look.
This year in the US, wildfires destroyed over 10,000 square miles of land – an area larger than the state of Maryland.
Meanwhile, many on the US East Coast are still recovering from the devastating rain, wind, flooding, and storm surge produced by hurricanes Florence and Michael. They join residents of Puerto Rico and people up and down the Gulf Coast, who more than a year later are still dealing with the long-lasting repercussions of hurricanes Maria, Irma, and Harvey.
There’s no question that the climate crisis is leading to stronger and more destructive weather events like these.
We’re at an important crossroads. Will government leaders rise to the moment and act aggressively to ensure a better world for our children and grandchildren? Or will they willfully ignore dire warnings from the world’s top scientists?
DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT
The threat of the climate crisis has never been clearer, and the stakes of inaction are higher than ever. Last week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, a report assessment of the wide-ranging impacts that can be expected if global average temperatures rise above 1.5°C. The world’s leading scientific experts collectively concluded that unprecedented and aggressive measures must be taken to reduce emissions to safe levels today.
Fortunately, cities, states, towns, and businesses have led the way and committed to real climate action by switching to renewable energy and making drastic cuts to emissions, but we must do more – and quickly.
Today, we’re launching a campaign to lead the charge on these solutions. With support from climate champions like you, we can train more movement leaders to take real action in communities across the globe. Together, we can speak up and tell our elected leaders to fight like our world depends on it, because it truly does.
And thanks to generous donors who share your dedication to solving this crisis, your gift will have twice the impact! Until October 31, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $35,000.
Help us reach our goal with a gift today!
– Your friends at Climate Reality
Here’s what I did with it via reply:
Great reply, Anthony! And congratulations to your promotion to “unknown”. Maybe someday they will promote you to “well known”?
Gore : my pants are on fire, please send money.
has anyone check the September HadCRUT data? re cooling trend
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
OK I checked…its more than halfway through October, and they still havent posted the September data.
Methinks it shows a strong cooling trend, and they can’t agree on how to fudge the data to remove this pesky trend.
How long they think they can get away with that is amazing….but they did 18 years already!
My plots of the data 1850 to Aug 2018 are here
http://www.nukepro.net/p/links.html
Have you a link to that?
MO site not updated yet.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
This is the time to be honest with ourselves… Just a few days ago the oh-so-capable Kip Hansen wrote about those curious anomalies, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/25/the-trick-of-anomalous-temperature-anomalies/ A very good post, and very true. Now, let’s drag forward what we learned from there: A thermometer marked on every degree can be read only to that marking, anything in between those markings is not a significant digit, I don’t care what the recorder writes down. If I’m using a Fahrenheit thermometer in Phoenix Arizona, and I read 113°F that has three significant digits, but I argue that’s spurious, because if I’m using a Centigrade thermometer, that same reading is 45°C with only two significant digits.
There do exist liquid-in-glass (LIG) thermometers marked in tenths of a degree, but they are useful only for a relatively tight range of readings, which atmospheric temperature is not. I haven’t checked into it, but I would guestimate that a LIG thermometer marked in tenths, with enough range to read all of the possible atmospheric temperatures at a given site would be several feet long, probably taller than the average site observer. So we can state right now that any temperature recorded from a LIG thermometer is only accurate to two significant digits.
What do I mean by Significant Digits (several webpages called them Significant Factors, same thing)? The first reference page that popped up gives The Rules,
• Rule #1 – Non-zero digits are always significant
• Rule #2 – Any zeros between two significant digits are significant
• Rule #3 – A final zero or trailing zeros in the decimal portion ONLY are significant.
•
In Kip’s example he used 72. That has two significant digits.
Significant digits through operations: “When quantities are being added or subtracted, the number of decimal places (not significant digits) in the answer should be the same as the least number of decimal places in any of the numbers being added or subtracted.”, so when adding together two temperatures, each with two significant digits, none to the right of the decimal place, and the sum is >100, you retain no significant digits to the right of the decimal place, but the last significant digit remains the number just to the left of the decimal.
“In a calculation involving multiplication, division, trigonometric functions, etc., the number of significant digits in an answer should equal the least number of significant digits in any one of the numbers being multiplied, divided etc.” Secondly, “Exact numbers, such as the number of people in a room, have an infinite number of significant figures.” So now I want to do an average of a whole stack of temperatures, add together all the temperatures, retaining the significant digit at the first number to the left of the decimal place, then divide by the exact number of temperatures, and the result will still have at most 2 significant digits, unless I’m <-10°<T<10° (this is why I would prefer to record these things in Kelvin or Rankine, I would get the same number of significant digits for all my atmospheric temperature readings).
What about numbers of mixed origin? What if I am averaging a temperature taken each day of the year, and I start with a LIG thermometer, and half-way through I switch to an electronic hygrometer with a digital readout, what am I really measuring, what am I reading, and what do I really know (thank you, Dr Tim Ball)? Let’s take the first one (actually the first 3 handheld hygrometers) I find on-line, displays the temperature with a decimal point, one digit to the right of the decimal point, again, what am I reading? Go the specification datasheet, however, and it declares the accuracy to be ±0.5°C. You have no more significant digits than your LIG thermometer, because it may well read 22.2°C, but that temperature could be anywhere from 21.7°C to 22.7°C. You may want to record that last *.2, but it is not a significant digit. “The accepted convention is that only one uncertain digit is to be reported for a measurement.” The correct way to record the reading from that thermometer, even though the display says 22.2, is to write 22 ± 0.5. Your gee whiz high tech handheld hygrometer has not improved your accuracy any. (In fact, after nearly an hour of searching, I could not find any digital thermometer suitable for measuring ambient air with an accuracy finer than ±0.3°C.) So, for significant digits when taking an average, see above. Bottom line, there are NO significant digits to the right of the decimal place in weather! (I started this paragraph to make the point that even if the newer instrument could record temperatures to four figures to the right of the decimal, when you averaged it with a number from a LIG thermometer you still would have only the same number of significant digits as the least accurate of your numbers; i.e., two significant digits of the LIG thermometer. But, no need, the newer instruments, in reality are, no more accurate than the old.)
You know what this does to an anomaly, right? You can see this coming? Take your 30 year average baseline, with the last significant digit just to the left of the decimal point, and read the current year with the last significant digit just to the left of the decimal point, and subtract one from the other, what do you get? You get an integer. A number with no digits at all to the right of the decimal place.
And yet, after all that, the opportunists want to chortle about THIS: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/uah-globally-the-coolest-september-in-the-last-10-years/ Well, let’s take a random sample (OK, this is the first thing that popped up on a Duck-Duck-Go search) we have a table of Coldest/Warmest Septembers for three (for our purposes random) locations which will make a good example.
Top 20 Coldest/Warmest Septembers in Southeast Lower Michigan
Rank Detroit Area* Flint Bishop** Saginaw Area***
Coldest Warmest Coldest Warmest Coldest Warmest
Temp Year Temp Year Temp Year Temp Year Temp Year Temp Year
1 57.4 1918 72.2 1881 55.4 1924 69.2 1933 54.9 1918 69.0 1931
2 58.6 1879 69.8 1931 56.3 1993 68.1 1931 56.4 1924 68.0 1933
3 59.1 1975 69.5 1921 57.3 1975 68.0 2015 56.7 1993 67.6 2015
4 59.1 1876 69.3 2015 57.4 1966 66.6 2002 56.8 1949 66.8 1921
5 59.2 1883 68.9 2018 57.4 1949 66.6 1934 56.9 1956 66.2 1961
6 59.4 1924 68.9 2002 57.5 1956 66.2 1921 57.0 1943 66.2 1927
7 59.6 1896 68.8 1961 57.7 1981 66.1 1961 57.3 1975 65.9 2005
8 59.6 1974 68.6 1908 57.8 1962 65.9 1927 57.4 1981 65.9 1998
9 59.6 1949 68.5 1933 58.0 1967 65.6 1939 58.5 1991 65.6 2017
10 59.6 1890 68.4 2005 58.5 1995 65.4 1978 58.5 1962 65.6 2016
11 59.7 1899 68.4 1906 58.6 1928 65.3 1998 58.7 1935 65.5 1971
12 59.9 1875 68.2 2016 58.7 2006 65.1 2005 58.8 1917 65.3 1930
13 60.0 1888 68.0 1998 58.8 1963 65.1 1930 58.9 1951 65.2 1936
14 60.1 1887 67.9 1891 58.9 1974 65.1 1925 58.9 1950 65.1 2018
15 60.3 1967 67.9 1884 59.1 1957 65.0 1936 59.0 1938 64.7 1948
16 60.4 1956 67.5 1978 59.3 2001 64.8 2016 59.0 1928 64.6 2004
17 60.7 1928 67.5 1941 59.3 1937 64.8 2018 59.1 2006 64.5 2002
18 60.8 1981 67.5 1898 59.5 1943 64.8 1983 59.3 1984 64.4 1941
19 61.0 1993 67.4 2004 59.6 1991 64.8 1971 59.3 2000 64.3 1968
20 61.2 1984 67.2 1927 59.6 1989 64.5 1941 59.3 1992 64.0 2007
* Detroit Area temperature records date back to January 1874.
** Flint Bishop temperature records date back to January 1921.
*** Saginaw Area temperature records date back to January 1912.
I have copied/pasted the entire table because it was easiest that way. I can make my point, and save myself quite a few mouse-clicks, by taking just the Detroit Area readings, using the Excel nested functions of ROUND(CONVERT()) in one swell foop to show the temperature data with appropriate significant digits.
Detroit Area*
Coldest Warmest
Temp Year Temp Year
14 1918 22 1881
15 1879 21 1931
15 1975 21 1921
15 1876 21 2015
15 1883 21 2018
15 1924 21 2002
15 1896 20 1961
15 1974 20 1908
15 1949 20 1933
15 1890 20 2005
15 1899 20 1906
16 1875 20 2016
16 1888 20 1998
16 1887 20 1891
16 1967 20 1884
16 1956 20 1978
16 1928 20 1941
16 1981 20 1898
16 1993 20 2004
16 1984 20 1927
The sub-heading on the linked article is UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2018: +0.14 deg. C, without giving any absolute temperature, but if it were talking about a temperature reading taken in the Detroit Area, we could guess that anomaly is relative to something in the vicinity of 15°C, and then that 0.14°C disappears in the noise and is indistinguishable from 10 others that also show up as 15°C when shown with the proper number of significant digits. In fact, given the significant digits discussed above, the temperature anomaly, calculated to the best accuracy available from the instrumentation, becomes 0. ZERO. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Nothing to write home about. Nothing to make a post on ANY blog about! Thus, you can see why I have sprained eyeball muscles, because every time the “warmunists” call a press conference to declare Hottest Year EVAH!™, my eyes do a spontaneous eyeroll, so hard I believe I have incurred permanent damage, and it’s uncontrollable, it’s so bad! Their Hottest Year EVAH!™ is indistinguishable from at least 10 others just like it, as far as what the thermometers can really measure, and what that database can really tell us.
Al Gore. What a joke.
Someday at the point when the GW/CCC scam donation well spring runs dry, Al Gore will be looking for a new gig; perhaps the promotion marketing model of terry cloth bathrobes for plus size males in a Motel 6 commercial or a screen test as a bit player for the television show SVU auditing for the perp lineup of suspects of a sexual crime.
At first I read your TV show as SUV instead of SVU and though ”
How apropos to cast Al Baby as an SUV
DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT:
“Make an outrageous claim of potential impacts and I’ll double it. “
A great opportunity to add a plethora of little CO2’s rising in the air above the flame
Climate Indulgences make a great gift as well! Act now, and you’ll receive this cute, plush polar bear* as our way of saying Thanks for helping save our planet. Don’t delay.
*While supplies last. Taxes & shipping extra.
“Meanwhile, many on the US East Coast are still recovering from the devastating rain, wind, flooding, and storm surge produced by hurricanes Florence and Michael. They join residents of Puerto Rico and people up and down the Gulf Coast, who more than a year later are still dealing with the long-lasting repercussions of hurricanes Maria, Irma, and Harvey.”
So sorry Florida Panhandle. You don’t count in the Climate Propaganda War since you’re obviously Trump voters and deep Red country.
“…wildfires destroyed over 10,000 square miles of land…”
The trees growing on the land may have been destroyed, but the land was NOT! More evidence of clear thinking and articulate hustlers.
How many thousands of square miles of crops were harvested? If that harvest is considered as land destroyed, how does it( land) keep getting destroyed a couple of times each year, year after year?
I used to get Climate Reality email propaganda, requests for donations, and exhortations to become a local team leader to spread their word but they stopped about a year ago for unknown reasons. I never had them sent automatically to junk because I find some of them amusing and it’s always interesting to see their latest spin on some catastrophe caused by CO2 in the air. I think their tax free status needs to be investigated as they are openly political.
Several legitimate abuse of power and national security cases should be brought to a Grand Jury to seek indictments against former Obama Administration officials. But Jeff Sessions and the DOJ seems to be uninterested in pursuing cases of crimes committed by denizens of the Washington, DC swamp.
It is all curiously vague.
It says that your contributions will be matched but not where the money is coming from.
The organisation does not seem to have any plans to use the money to actually do anything, they are a pure political lobbying organization, demanding that governments fix the “problem” in an unspecified manner.
Exactly, BillP !!
That was my question. Matching contribution from WHO? And what will the money be used for? What a scam! And matching contributions up to $35,000. Who would respond to this type of money-grubbing email by donating $35,000 ?!?
There was one bit of truth buried in there, though, when he referred to Anthony as “climate champions like you.”
I have a feeling that the “matching” would be done by funds from Al Gore’s accumulated wealth from his various other projects. But what proof would a person have that such “matching” was, in fact, done ? There’s a lot of trust being asked there to believe that “matching” would be done. I suppose a lot of people are that trusting.
As to what the money will be used for? — to run the non-profit business, of course — pay the salaried employees, the consultants, the expenses for more workshops, the expenses for more advertising, more fundraising, … just paying for more of what they already do, … to keep the business going, … to pay the salaries, consultants, program costs, etc., etc.
Looking at their audited financial statement for 2017, a huge chunk of money goes towards paying salaries and consultants, if I remember correctly [I just glanced at it quickly].
It’s a business. Non-profit, you say? People are STILL getting paid to work it. It’s more money being asked for to run the business in a bigger, better way, … to raise more money, and so on, and on, and on.
Matching may be meant as between contributors say, $10 from Kristy with $10 from Nick and vice versa. See?
Act now and receive a full student loan waiver and a free cell phone and paid off mortgage. Refer a friend and you also get a free tribal membership card and full scholarship to the Ivy League school of your choice. Use promo code “nonsense.”
“your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $35,000.”
Subtle hint to go big or stay home.
I also like the phrase “support from climate champions like you”.
Perhaps they should offer a shirt and hat stating your are a “Climate Champion”. Minimum donation required.
Interestingly, The Climate Irrationality (I mean, “Reality”) Project does not have a real contact link that you can easily get to, but I submitted a support ticket worded as follows:
________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Al Gore and other board members of The Climate Reality Project,
While I am a fervent believer in treating our environment with utmost respect, I suspect that you all are acting on misinformation.
In your call-to-action letter to donate, you write the following:
“This year in the US, wildfires destroyed over 10,000 square miles of land – an area larger than the state of Maryland.”
First, this statement is somewhat of a mistatement, since the actual land itself was NOT destroyed, but rather tree cover on the land was destroyed. Second, and most importantly, this statement mistakenly implies that the stated amount of tree cover lost to fire is grossly out of the ordinary.
Now, I wonder what is your source of information about wild fires. My source of information on this subject does NOT support your implication that wild fires have gotten worse. In fact, my source reaches the opposite conclusion:
[“…global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.’] … from the abstract of the paper by Stefan H. Doerr, Cristina Santín (2016), Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world, PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B [Biological Sciences], 5 June 2016, Volume 371, issue 1696.
I hasten to say, therefore, that this year’s U. S. tree loss due to wildfires gives no cause to be any more alarmed than usual about wildfires. Furthermore, this loss does not support any belief that unusual climate change caused this level of loss — it did NOT.
In your call-to-action letter to donate, referring to this year’s hurricanes, you also write:
“There’s no question that the climate crisis is leading to stronger and more destructive weather events like these.”
Again, I wonder what is your source of information about weather events that have shown an increasing trend over a long enough time to be considered a trend in climate change. You realize, of course, that destructive weather events have to show an increase over a period of years, in order to be considered an indication of a severe climate shift. Once again, my sources of information show that any such increase over time has NOT occurred.
There are a number of charts illustrating this fact. You can find them at the following web page: https://wattsupwiththat.com/extreme-weather-page/
Finally, in your call-to-action letter, you write:
“Last week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, a report assessment of the wide-ranging impacts that can be expected if global average temperatures rise above 1.5°C.”
Referring to this latest report by the United Nations IPCC might seem like a valid act of reference, but when a rational, intelligent person seriously looks at this report, he/she will see that it appears to have little basis in reality. Rather, a rational, intelligent person will see that the report is based on fictional outcomes of woefully inadequate computer models, with known extreme uncertainties and known extreme gaps in understanding, that have a horrible record of matching real-world climate, exaggerated into extreme policy statements that could ruin the lives of some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
Frankly, this particular report, regardless of its prolific number of pages detailing those fictions, does more damage to the reputation of climate science than good. I have little respect for such fantasy writing and, therefore, little respect for any organization (such as yours) that cites such fantasy writing as factual.
Using claims that I find unsupported by evidence, together with a special report that conveys fiction as fact, gives me zero cause to trust the integrity of your organization, let alone donate money to what I, therefore, deduce as your fraudulent cause.
Spoil Sport – don’t confuse them with the facts, their mind is made up!
There is probably a spam filter setup that sent this straight to Trash when it encountered the word “fraudulent”. Almost like they were expecting it.
Spam filter, … I didn’t think about that. I would not be surprised, of course, if this were the case.
If, by some chance, however, I did get some sort of generic reply, I would post a follow up here. Don’t hold your breath, though, because you are probably right, and no eyes there will ever see my attempted communication.
“There’s no question that the climate crisis is leading to stronger and more destructive weather events like these.”
Apparently Al the Fool didn’t read the sentence in the IPCC’s reort that noted that weather events
Are NOT related to global warming.
The No Agenda podcast did a segment recently on an Al Gore interview where he was interviewed about climate change. The hosts of the podcast, Adam and John, do media deconstruction and were laughing at Gore’s inability to do his interview without a chuckling in his response. They think it’s a “tell” that he is lying.
I just think Gore believes in unicorns.
Al Gore believes mostly in “Benjamins” … as in Benjamin Franklins picture on the U.S. $50 bill.
James-san:
$100 bill is Benjamin Franklin, $50 is Ulysses Grant.
Maybe Kenji could mail them a “donation”.
LOL! I’ll ask.
I smell something not quite right about this.
must say
the indoctrination of most countries in the world is unbelievably effective and indeed very similar to how Goebels & nazies made Europe believe about the ‘rats’ (Jews) that had infected Europe…
In this an innocent molecule, i.e CO2 is blamed
Click on my name to read my final report on that.
What, is Gore not in on the UN’s 100 trillion? Or didn’t he get enough money from tobacco and oil?
“Help us reach our goal with a gift today!”
Note that there is no reference in the letter to what that goal “is”. From the text, their goal is either to:
1. Train local activists, or
2. Lobby elected leaders.
So, the goal is open ended and success can be declared regardless of the amount raised. Very liberal mindset for achieving goals – they have won before they ever started. Therefore, since they have already won, no funds need to be sent 🙂
“Today, we’re launching a campaign to lead the charge on these solutions. With support from climate champions like you, we can train more movement leaders to take real action in communities across the globe.”
Just what the world needs: More activists (movement leaders).
Money well spent. No wonder the unemployment rate is at its lowest ever.
Do people really send money to algore’s site?
He’s getting the money for all those mansions from somewhere.
I would be inclined to suggest that Al makes a donation on my behalf.
I suspect he has ore cash to waste than I have. 🙂
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
I repair guitar amplifiers. Years ago, a customer dropped off his amp at my garage/workshop as I was preparing my lighting fixtures for my annual six kilowatt “Earth Hour” show. He handed me his business card as a “Presenter” for “The Climate Reality Project”. I later returned the amp to him as not repairable (fractured multi-layer circuit board) due to Global Warming.
LOL Did he ever respond to that?
How do you live down the fact that your antics at a massage parlor became national news ?
I’d be in hiding the rest of my life.
No IQ needed and definitely no fact checking.
But.. but.. but… no matter how obvious these criminals are and how demonstrably false the AGW fraud is, if not for the election of Donald Trump the world would be sliding fast into an AGW-based totalitarian technocracy, with Queen Hillary and Prince Justin at the helm. We should all pray every day for the President’s safety and do everything in our power to expose this monstrous fraud. Ridicule is fine when you’re on solid ground, but with the world run by genocidal psychopaths there is no solid ground and no justice. Only hard facts repeated widely and often can destroy this web of deception before it destroys us.
If they send one of those envelopes with the printed postage, fill the envelop with newspaper clippings and send it back to them.
They have to pay for return postage and someone has to be paid to open it.
I know someone who once sent a box of rocks using the return envelope. He considered it a valid donation.
“Will government leaders… act aggressively to ensure a better world?’ Climate Champions like you… can tell our elected leaders to fight like our World depends on it, because it truly does.” Since when has lobbying politicians to call for One World Governance made the World a better place? Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
“Will government leaders… act aggressively to ensure a better world?’ Climate Champions like you… can tell our elected leaders to fight like our World depends on it, because it truly does.” Since when has lobbying politicians to call for One World Governance made the World a better place? Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
Actually he called you a climate champion. Maybe you should get a t shirt with that on it.
“The dirty fingerprints of the climate crisis are everywhere you look.”
They sure are and all over other people’s money too!
The mafia has been known to demand that business owners pay them protection money. If the business paid up, their businesses would be ‘protected’ from being vandalized by mafia thugs, . Basically, the mafia would get people to pay them money to avoid a ‘crisis’ that did not really exist, until it was created by the mafia.
Al Gore is doing much the same thing, but there are a few ethical differences. For one, the mafia was pretty straight forward with their practice. They did not have to continuously lie about the threat, which was quite real. So the mafia was much more honest than Al Gore, who continuously has to lie and mislead about the climate. Secondly, if you paid the mafia, they really did deliver on their promise to ‘protect’ your business. Sure it was extortion, but it was effective. No matter how much money Al Gore extorts from people, it won’t make one bit of difference to the climate. The people will get no ‘protection’ for their ‘investment’!
Al Gore – Making the Mafia look ethical!
Send money to the Green Nigerian Prince…and his frat boy assistant.
“Your donation will be doubled!” By whom? If by themselves, aren’t they just giving money to themselves? Another con, to go along with the con that is CAGW.