On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:
Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”
Watch the video:
Here’s the polar ice cap extent today:
As you can see from the graph above, Arctic sea ice came nowhere close to disappearing during the summer minimum, and has rebounded to be within 2 standard deviations in the last few weeks.
During the summer minimum, the North polar ice cap looked like this:
The sea ice extent today:
Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
10 years ago, Al Gore predicted that he would be relevant.
He’s still batting zero.
But he sure has rhythm.
Algorithm
The penguins must be disappointed, what with the lack of warmth.
“Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?”
Thankfully the majority of people in Tennessee did not or he would have been President. We owe those people much gratitude.
“Ice free Arctic.” Would it not re-freeze in the winter?
The Nobel Committee spent their last dime’s worth of credibility on this worthless human being.
What….aside from some crazy international AGW conspiracy, explains that?
The Nobel committee was fooled by a television documentary?
It makes them look pretty simple doesn’t it. In fact it’s rather insulting that Al Gore had them fooled, LOL.
The same old same old scare stories are sold over and over but they are also bought. As weird as their scare projections are, the general public eats it up and it creates a sense of urgency for climate action to save the planet.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/15/history-of-the-global-warming-scare-chapter-6-2005-2010/
It works because good marketing people know how our brain really works and that it is pre-wired for confirmation bias and the precautionary principle.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/03/confirmationbias/
This old barry mcguire song sums it all up. The essence of fearology marketing.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/07/the-eve-of-destruction-of-the-planet-by-climate-change/
Answer: They get paid to listen to AL Gore.
Al Gore simply repeated the stupidity of many scientists that don’t understand how least squares line and higher order polynomial data fits was originally derived, and how it works. It only has meaning to set a trend to dependent variables. In fact, that is what all of the functions mean. For example, a line is y = mx + b. The generalization of this is y = f(x), y is a function of x. So these morons on both sides of the climate argument plot time series, which says that time makes climate and to stop bad climate you have to go back in time. What the use of least squares to time series also means is that many of these scientists are apparently too ignorant to know what they are doing because setting a time series to climate by definition, declares you don’t have a clue what drives climate, because if you did, you would graph the causative agent in x (CO2 concentration for example). Even proponents of the sun being the driving force, what is very reasonable, fall into this by overlaying time series of noisy sun spot cycles and global mean temperature and claiming a correlation. However, if and when they ever bother to graph sun spots in x and global mean temperature anomaly in y, they will find that the graph is a pyramid. This means that with lower sunspot count there is no correlation to colder temperature at all, but there is wider variation of temperature anomaly. At the top at the peak of 350 sun spots, the temperature anomaly achieves unity with no range at about +0.25 C temperature anomaly. So the higher the sunspot count, the less temperature variation is recorded. The graph is biased to positive temperature anomaly. This is what the correlations that have meaning really show. So by definition, we already knew the day Gore made his pronouncement citing an illiterate scientist who does not understand the principles upon which least squares was constructed, used a parabolic function fit, while PIOMASS morons use a linear function fit, to project no Arctic summer sea ice for a function that has no meaning. This is like graphing commodity prices and fitting a trend to predict future prices. This does not work and traders know it, so they look for breakouts from the trends to make buy/sell decisions, but never try to predict future prices or when the breakouts will occur. This means that intelligent statisticians go into market trading to make the big money, and the dolts go into climatology.
I don’t understand some of this but it sounds important enough to have you elaborate here or better, submit a guest post to Anthony showing examples of what you are referring to as this is one of the few sites dedicated to finding truth.
I don’t understand some of this but it seems important enough for you to elaborate here or better still submit a guest post to Anthony showing examples of what you refer to. If half the graphs we look at are simply whistling Dixie because of a fundamental error using time, we need clarification!
I don’t know why the first post did not enter until I posted the second!
Even more inconvenient, the ‘honourable’ Al Gore is still there. And still hypocritical.
Al Gore reminds be of a Bourbon Street strip club barker. “Pretty girls inside!” You go in the joint and they are fugly. Been listening to this tripe for 30 years now…nothing has changed, including the temperature.
Ten years ago I predicted this humbug’s career woulda fizzled by now, but I was wrong, too.
If Al Gore told me it was dark outside, I’d be inclined to look out the window to be sure.
Then I’d look at my watch and find realize the sun had set, a perfectly natural event.
Then I’d say “NO” when he tried to sell me a solar-powered flashlight.
And where is this fail mentioned in the MSM? The silence is deafening. So much for the impartiality of any of the media including one of the worst purveyors of climate alarmism, Pravda, the European Edition (The BBC).
Gore belongs to the MSM; when he speaks they support him. No one in the media wants to hold Gore’s feet to the fire by doing an investigative piece on his predictions. Besides they’re too busy attacking everyone who doesn’t agree with Gore…..
The headline to the story is not true, as one can easily check by listening to the video. Gore did not predict that in five years the polar cap would be gone. He reported that, according to one scientist, some models showed a 75% chance that it would be gone.
There are enough examples of real false predictions by alarmists that there is no need to attribute predictions to them that they didn’t make; doing so makes critics look bad.
By “reporting what one scientist thinks some models show” he is endorsing that position by choosing to repeat that conclusion, and not all the 1000’s of other things he could have reported on. It is a slimy political tactic to couch your own thoughts in wrapper of a authoritative figure, but not include many others that would dispute it.
Don’t fall for slimy political double-speak, and let him wriggle off the hook he put himself on.
He choose to report that “one scientist” because it supported his narrative. His narrative has been shown to be false in the fulness of time. So yes, it was a prediction by an alarmist (Gore) and it was false (the arctic is *still* not ice free or anywhere near it years after the prediction of the narrative Gore chose to present). Making excuses for the false prediction of charlatans like Gore only makes you look bad.
The problem is faulty Al Gore-isms
He would say you are just a pedant. He only got the timing wrong. It will happen, for sure, for sure. Just like all the catastrophic other stuff. In the meantime we just mumble and reclassify events that have been happening for millenia as extreme weather, so as to prove our portent of doom.
We need a simple (?) way to catalogue all the time-bound predictions, and add commentary to them as each shown-to-false even happens…..
Given this particular claim might not be completely true/false, I can recall others.
“Our children will not k ow what snow is” is another tha springs to mind from several years ago….
ah Dr. David Viner of CRU and his infamous 2000 line of “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”
interestingly, the independent (where Dr Viner was originally quoted) has long since deleted the article from their website as pointed out here are WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/
Another jem from Dr Viner (same article) was:
well, 20 years are almost up (it’s been 18 already) and heavy snows have happened on a regular basis, causing no more chaos that they ever did. I think we can safely label Dr Viner’s predictions false and the article that reported them as just so much “fake news”
There is and never has been an Ice cap at the North Pole. Ice Caps only occur on land.The North Pole is sea ice.
Depends on what you are talking about.
Ice Caps are, indeed, over land.
Polar Ice Caps however are not necessarily over land, from Wikipedia:
This article specifically used the term “polar ice cap” and not just “ice cap” so your objection is invalid as you are complaining about a term that was not in use in the article.
Its here and it is getting worse. Al Gore deserves credit for alerting the general public through his very well-attended lecture tour: https://youtu.be/Bc8sppzaueo
It’s not here, and it’s getting better.
Fools and there money are soon parted.
“Its here and it is getting worse.”
You’re right, Ivan. It is still here and, from Gore acolyte’s perspective, it is getting worse.
Psst… Never take any advice from Al Gore…
wise words
Really? He used the term “polarized”? Did not know polar ice could be polarized. I guess the current political split goes deeper than I thought. Even ice is split between liberals and conservatives.
Idiot man.
Why does anyone listen to Al Gore?
Could it be that some type of journalists are attracted to the scent of money and become addicted to it.