Gore admits the the IPCC climate report was “torqued up” to get attention

Former Vice President Al Gore: “The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?” Video follows.

Gore admission that the UN IPCC report was “torqued up” in order to “get the attention of policy-makers around the world” is just the latest in a long line of evidence that the UN climate panel is nothing more than “a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.”

PBS NEWSHOUR – ONE-ON-ONE – Broadcast: October 12, 2018 – (Gore’s quote begins at 1 min. 30 into video)

PBS host Judy Woodruff to Former Vice President Al Gore: “They are painting a much more alarming picture of what we face than we had previously known…”

Gore: “The language that the [UN] IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?”

h/t to Climate Depot

It’s simply more of this, pioneered by the late climate doomster Dr. Steven Schneider:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

 

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Gore admits the the IPCC climate report was “torqued up” to get attention

    • “We are not just scientists but human beings as well.” They believe that science is somehow inhuman. They are NO SCIENTISTS.

      • Torquing up is exactly what advertisers do: “Introducing the all-new amazing, fantastic, wonderful whatever”. You hear it so much that you just tune it out.

        • AKA “Sexed Up” but Gore wouldn’t use that expression because that would really sound like leftard hypocrisy.

          • If algore said it was sexed up he would have sound like a ‘sex crazed poodle’ and he’s taking no chances.

          • I’ve heard of “torquing down” in engineering but WFT is “torquing up”.

            Maybe what he said was TALKING UP. ???

          • Thanks Greg. I was just about to make the same comment. A quick look at DuckDuckGo suggests torquing in modern parlance is the male version of twerking – Gore twerking is not an image I want to see.

        • Advertisers are allowed to use superlatives, but they are not allowed to lie.

          That is an important distinction, and here anyway, the ASA will come down like a ton of bricks on an advertiser making claims which the product can’t possibly meet.

          Many of the claims made for climate change and renewables fall into the ‘lie’ category, for example claims that businesses run on 100% renewable energy when fed from a shared electrical cable. They may mean that they have bought renewables equal to the their consumption, but that is not what they say, and the intent of deception is inherent in the wording.

      • This is so condescending and contempuous of the policy makers and public it is disgusting. Imagine preparing a report for your boss and filling it with drama and hyperbole that makes it obvious you think he’s too stupid to understand that you should be running the company.

        • Indeed! Reminds me of a book called ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’ by John Perkins. To lie about the output of a project to snare a country in the debt of the borrowed money for said project. 😔

    • See: recent thread on tornadoes, what the media says vs. what it actually publishes, i.e., maybe they haven’t published something but hey, if the media wants to run with it…crickets.

      • Corrected:

        See: recent thread on tornadoes, what the media says vs. what science actually publishes, i.e., maybe they haven’t published something but hey, if the media wants to run with it…crickets.

    • “So, what else is new?”

      According to Al Gore, it’s no longer 97% but 99% of scientists who think humans are causing harmful climate change. Does anyone know when they held the official vote? Did they count the hanging chads? Al wouldn’t be “torquing up” the percentage to get the attention of policy makers and the media, would he?

  1. Note that the accused masher carefully avoided saying “sexed up”.

    And since the masseuse must always be believed, the accusation, made to Portland police, must be accepted! Although for some reason Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Kathy Shelton, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al. were not to be credited.

    • To the credit of the Portland police they are getting p****d off at the ‘handcuffs’ they are being forced to work under and are getting vocal about it.

      • My Oregon LEO friends point out that disgust in the Portland Police Bureau has meant a windfall in highly qualified applicants for jobs in other Oregon PDs.

        No cloud so dark that it lacks a silver lining.

  2. The only “existential threat” I see would be persons with Gore’s policies taking power, and actually putting them in place (two different things).
    Woodruff conducted a decidedly softball interview, as most of what ManBearPig claimed about hurricanes, and anything else, was quite dubious.

  3. The general public ain’t daft.

    An admission like this from Gore will resonate with them. I mean, it’s not like the denizens of WUWT aren’t members of the general public, we just cottoned onto the scam some time before anyone else. Many, like Anthony, many years ago.

    In my own small way I like to think I do the tiniest bit of good just by being here and posting.

  4. “Gore admission that the UN IPCC report was “torqued up” in order to “get the attention of policy-makers around the world” is just the latest in a long line of evidence that the UN climate panel is”….getting desperate

  5. I suppose that this is as close to an admission of propaganda as we will ever get.
    I wonder if he learned ‘truthiness’ from the Saudis?

  6. Gore claims the former 97% consensus is now 99% with a few outliers. Provides no observational evidence.
    He confuses outliers with out and out liars. Geoff

    • c’mon Geoff,

      there are some people that still think the earth is flat. do you think the earth is flat too? are you that wacky?

      People like you shouldn’t get any air time.

      • There are a very very surprisingly large number of people who think the earth is a large, flat, stationary space pizza around which the entire universe revolves. Some even believe the moon is a projection and the sun is just above the clouds.

      • “DonM October 24, 2018 at 4:14 pm
        c’mon Geoff,

        there are some people that still think the earth is flat. do you think the earth is flat too? are you that wacky?”

        Logical fallacy foul on the field!

        Donm mistakes his strawman for something Geoff said or wrote.
        Donm is delusional!
        Geoff did not state what Donm claims.

        Nor does Donm refute Geoff’s statement, in the least. Donm leaves us with the impression Donm believes his own fallacious nonsense.

      • For many everyday applications, the earth is safely assumed flat. When you measure the length and width of your housing block, do you include a curvature adjustment? Not usually.
        When you read about liner equation assumptions in climate modelling, do you agree that a short section of an exponential or logarithmic curve can safely be assumed flat? Like many projections of the alleged temperature response to doubling or less of atmospheric CO2?

        In overall terms, no, I consider the earth to be roughly spherical, but have studied the several mathematical approximations that surveyors use for deviation from a perfect sphere. I used to bounce equations off my son on his way to his surveying degree. I used to hold seminars with the top scientists looking at whether the earth is expanding.
        What have you done, DonM? Are you even a graduate scientist in a hard science?
        Geoff

  7. The problem for Fat Al and the rest of the Climate Scientologists is that the ‘boy crying wolf’ dodge has passed its use by date. Amazingly the Maldives remain above water. Other similar lies are being exposed on a daily basis.

  8. … how many Hiroshima bombs worth of “extra heat energy” every day is trapped by the man made global warming pollution?

    500,000 …?

    Over 10 years that’s 1.8 Billion Hiroshimas worth of heat energy. That is a lot of “heat energy”.

      • That is right. Good absorbs are also good radiators and by far more heat energy is moved in the troposphere via conduction, convection, and phase change then by LWIR absorption band radiation. It is really the non-greenhouse gases that are more apt to trap heat energy because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space.

        • Yes William.

          Particularly water which is a good absorber but traps this radiation into Latent Heat and sends it backup through the atmosphere to be dissipated into space, by way of the buoyancy of dry steam. It is the Rankine Cycle which does this at the rate of. some 680 WattHrs/Kg of water evaporated.

  9. Al Gore is placing more emphasis on “what the scientists are saying”. A separation of Gore and the CAGW theory. When the warming and devastation does not occur, or shows no signs of occurring, Gore will completely distance himself, turn on the CAGW scientists to protect himself and his legacy.
    Regards

  10. Climate doomsday cultist Steven Schneider wrote:
    “To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    The IPCC finds itself in quite a jam… only the lunatic fringe believe they’re honest (but then, they also believed Hitlery ‘Cankles’ Clintoon was honest. LOL), and nearly no one believes they’re effective. It’s time to de-fund the IPCC. They’ve shown their humanity-hating industry-destroying communist hand, they’ve been caught in lie after lie and scandal after scandal, and every single exaggeration/lie they’ve breathlessly predicted didn’t come to pass. How many more years of this scam must the public be forced to fund before the perpetrators of the scam are prosecuted (and hopefully persecuted, too)?

  11. “How else do we get the attention of policy makers around the world”. The best way I know of would be to tell the truth.

    • For the IPCC to tell the truth would be to get a yawn, and close up shop.
      At this point that would trigger a huge market crash, in an election cycle. Now we would’nt want that, would we?

    • No surprise at all. !

      This statement will be totally ignored by those who have continually pushed the AGW scam.

  12. I’m glad I’m not in Gore’s shoes, it seems he’s dug a hole too deep to get out of, and he doesn’t seem to have the sense to stop digging.
    But for those few hanging chads….wow.

    • The reality is that Gore lost his home State of Tennessee something that rarely happens in a Presidential election. The voters there deserve all the credit. Had he won Tennessee the vote in Florida would not have mattered.

  13. “the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    Not very much of the latter, if I’m any judge.

  14. In my 2008 book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” under the Preface, 1st Para:

    “The Science of Climate Change has turned into a political satire of Global warming & Carbon Credits. In tune with this the Sciences of Climate Change moved from a scientific body, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), into an elected political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and as a result the scientific community and the media along with political communities started thinking locally and acting globally. As a result all these groups started using the word Climate Change as an adjective.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  15. Schneider:
    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Conclusion: the IPCC does “effective” science and not “honest” science.

  16. Isn’t he saying “talked up”? It has the same sound and basically the same meaning so I guess it’s not that important anyway. But talked up is a common enough expression. Just saying.

    • Belated reply: I agree, I was just about to comment the same but searched for “talked up” first. It’s a shame, because I think “torqued up” is a much sexier phrase. We need a speech expert to opine here. In my experience “talk” and “torque” are pronounced virtually the same in English English, but not so in some regions of American English. (In America I once made a pun between “pawn” and “porn” but it didn’t work because the Americas there distinguished the pronunciation.)

      American speech expert please?

  17. At the end of the day, I know of no person who has personally conceded to having felt, observed, been affected by alleged climate change. Even local farmers see yields increasing year after year and overcome their urges to claim they have been financially hurt by climate change.
    While alarmists shout about impending increases in climate extremes, all the credible evidence I can access points to a 50 year or so reduction of harm for the main fears globally.
    Can any reader here narrate honest, accurate examples of being harmed by genuine anthropogenic climate change?
    (No need to point to seaside property erosion from higher sea levels, they were increasing before the industrial revolution got serious.)
    What on earth is President Gore alluding to in his speech? Can anyone simplify it, with examples, please?
    Geoff

  18. Another Inconvenient Torque job by the IPCC (Intentional Propaganda Climate Cons ).
    No wonder they are tuned out . Even their media bunk buddies are tuning them out .
    When the models are consistently wrong in in one direction people ask questions .
    They can’t expect us to stand in a barrel while being peed on and not have us wiggle .
    The climate changes like always and humans temporary minuscule impact is as much favorable as
    negative .Get over it and find some others suckers to play .

  19. “… Gore: “The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?” …”

    Which is another way of saying that there was no real reason for anyone to paying attention to the IPCC’s blather. They just wanted to undermine politics and public debate all around the planet and of course, derail science altogether.

    Turds.

  20. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    Sorry, my 1925 POED doesn’t define “effective” as meaning lying!

  21. Good old Man-Bear-Pig, you can always count on him to pretend to know what’s happening in the Earth’s climate, and then putting things in terms of Hirosima bomb equivalents.

    What a putz.

  22. No climate rebuttal seen within this segment from the skeptic side of course, except for the bit from Judy about “other scientists are saying they these dire future predictions are just not borne out by evidence” to which Gore responded with a talking point ultimately sourcing from the late IPCC scientist Stephen Schneider ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886 ), “You still have some people who say the Earth is flat and not round, but you don’t give them equal time and saying some people say round, some people say flat.” I wonder if those two rehearsed that.

    But if folks wonder whether the NewsHour has provided any rebuttal that’s principally detailed climate science assessments from skeptic climate scientists …. no, they never have in the 20+ years of their online broadcast archives. I’ve quantified the ongoing bias here: “NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 10/12/18: 61 to 0” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834 . Their overall count of ‘direct discussions / prominent mentions of the global warming topic’ after October 12th, including this Gore segment, stands at 772, in which only 7 individuals going back to 1996 were ever permitted to offer NewsHour viewers any semblance of skeptic climate science points.

  23. What the debate boils down to is how much time the media is giving to so called denier scientists. Here in SA it is not much.
    I am not too much worried.
    Nature will prove us right. Eventually. The effect of global cooling is beginning. Drier and warmer at the higher latitudes in summer. Colderbin winters at the higher latitudes. Simple physics. Click on my name to read my final report.

  24. Fortunately there are no torqued up BOMBSHELLS! round here. It’s all just plain speakin’ with none of that emotive hyperbole. Not even a little bit.

  25. If scientists are willing to “torque up” the IPCC report, why wouldn’t they also be willing to torque up the temperature data to get the attention of policy makers? It just doesn’t make sense that they would fudge one official record but not another if they saw it to be an advantage.

  26. “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

    They never told us before. Maybe they thought “They’re old enough. Let them sort it out.

  27. So the logic appears to be:

    – We have published many previous reports, with many predictions, nothing much has happened
    – The public are starting to notice that our doomsaying amounts to nothing
    – The public are starting to ignore us, pretty soon politicians will to and the $ will dry up
    – So, we will ratchet up our predictions and use even more emotive language
    – At least we will have bought a few more years , until its clear nothing much is happening again
    – We need a rather large LOOK SQUIRREL !!!! any ideas?

  28. “IF” AGW is real, proven with statistically significant verified (verified meaning un adjusted, or homogenized or pasturize, massaged, cherry picked or otherwise manipulated) empirical data of more than once source then WHY does anyone need to “sex it up” , unless……………….?
    With that one interview the Goreon opened his maw and spewed forth what any discerning and numerically competent physicists have been pointing to for the last 20 years, namely that they have been repeately been jazzing up what is in reality the scam of all scams and THEY know it! What effect there is is minimal and the link to man will never be proved because nature TRUMPS all because the effect is SO small! My bet for the absurd sillyness which is global average temperature is that the effect of man is < 5% of the total and I would not be surprised if in reality it is a fraction of 1%. Also any multi trillion dollar industry which has to rely on ignoring the differency between eustacy and isostasy needs putting down as quickly as is reasonably possible for the good of mankind. Let us then get back to spending the money where it is needed and celebrating our good fortune at being alive during an INTERGLACIAL because it WILL get colder!

  29. Let me get this straight.
    Al says the IPCC reports are “torqed up” to get the attention of policy makers. In other words, a supposedly scientific body lied for political purposes.
    Yet he then claims Trump doing away with the regulations based on the lies is “literally insane”!?!?
    Sure, Al. You and the IPCC are credible.

  30. Comment: why is “recent comments” no longer on the side bar? This makes it far less that late commenters, like me in this case, will have anyone notice their comments.

Comments are closed.