Al Gore Visits Trump Tower Seeking ‘Areas of Common Ground’
http://www.breitbart.com/environmen...s-trump-tower-seeking-areas-of-common-ground/
http://www.breitbart.com/environmen...s-trump-tower-seeking-areas-of-common-ground/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Al Gore kisses the ring
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Al Gore Visits Trump Tower Seeking ‘Areas of Common Ground’
http://www.breitbart.com/environmen...s-trump-tower-seeking-areas-of-common-ground/
I bet Trump smirked the entire time while meeting with him while Gore spewed out his climate change nonsense.
Trump's first climate change act will be to make NASA focus on space research and take down the absurd climate.nasa.gov website. This will be a victory for fact based research.
As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .
Forget climate change. Green handouts have become a political end in themselves.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Dec. 9, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.
A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.
Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.
The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?
A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.
A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.
Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.
This is hardly the first study to demonstrate that electric cars solve no environmental problem. Will it make a difference? No. We’re way beyond that now.
News reports say Ivanka Trump organized the Gore meeting, undoubtedly due to her keen nose for the social incentives that make complying with the climate narrative a no-lose proposition for the kind of people who have a Manhattan socialite’s ear.
Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University, in a Bloomberg News op-ed this week stated that Exxon sells a product that “scientists have proven threatens the continuation of human life on earth”—an idiotic statement that no scientist would make and yet is the kind of thing that passes uncontested these days.
Which is ironic since the science has just started to get interesting again.
In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.
It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.
It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.
The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.
Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.
If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.
Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media for a decade or so, and then only because today’s editors and reporters have retired. The climate reporting industry has long since given itself over to propaganda rather than actually reporting on climate science.
The larger lesson here isn’t about climate change. It’s about democratic sclerosis. It’s about the endless multiplication of vested interests that taxpayers and consumers are forced to support in our supposedly free society.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-al-gore-told-donald-trump-1481326892
Forget climate change. Green handouts have become a political end in themselves.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Dec. 9, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.
A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.
Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.
The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?
A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.
A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.
Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.
This is hardly the first study to demonstrate that electric cars solve no environmental problem. Will it make a difference? No. We’re way beyond that now.
News reports say Ivanka Trump organized the Gore meeting, undoubtedly due to her keen nose for the social incentives that make complying with the climate narrative a no-lose proposition for the kind of people who have a Manhattan socialite’s ear.
Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University, in a Bloomberg News op-ed this week stated that Exxon sells a product that “scientists have proven threatens the continuation of human life on earth”—an idiotic statement that no scientist would make and yet is the kind of thing that passes uncontested these days.
Which is ironic since the science has just started to get interesting again.
In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.
It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.
It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.
The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.
Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.
If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.
Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media for a decade or so, and then only because today’s editors and reporters have retired. The climate reporting industry has long since given itself over to propaganda rather than actually reporting on climate science.
The larger lesson here isn’t about climate change. It’s about democratic sclerosis. It’s about the endless multiplication of vested interests that taxpayers and consumers are forced to support in our supposedly free society.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-al-gore-told-donald-trump-1481326892
As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .
Forget climate change. Green handouts have become a political end in themselves.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Dec. 9, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.
A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.
Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.
The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?
A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.
A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.
Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.
This is hardly the first study to demonstrate that electric cars solve no environmental problem. Will it make a difference? No. We’re way beyond that now.
News reports say Ivanka Trump organized the Gore meeting, undoubtedly due to her keen nose for the social incentives that make complying with the climate narrative a no-lose proposition for the kind of people who have a Manhattan socialite’s ear.
Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University, in a Bloomberg News op-ed this week stated that Exxon sells a product that “scientists have proven threatens the continuation of human life on earth”—an idiotic statement that no scientist would make and yet is the kind of thing that passes uncontested these days.
Which is ironic since the science has just started to get interesting again.
In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.
It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.
It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.
The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.
Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.
If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.
Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media for a decade or so, and then only because today’s editors and reporters have retired. The climate reporting industry has long since given itself over to propaganda rather than actually reporting on climate science.
The larger lesson here isn’t about climate change. It’s about democratic sclerosis. It’s about the endless multiplication of vested interests that taxpayers and consumers are forced to support in our supposedly free society.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-al-gore-told-donald-trump-1481326892
In short summary... Al Gore told Donald Trump how much money you can make off this climate change scam.
As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .
Forget climate change. Green handouts have become a political end in themselves.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Dec. 9, 2016 6:41 p.m. ET
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.
A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.
Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.
The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?
A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.
A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.
Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.
This is hardly the first study to demonstrate that electric cars solve no environmental problem. Will it make a difference? No. We’re way beyond that now.
News reports say Ivanka Trump organized the Gore meeting, undoubtedly due to her keen nose for the social incentives that make complying with the climate narrative a no-lose proposition for the kind of people who have a Manhattan socialite’s ear.
Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University, in a Bloomberg News op-ed this week stated that Exxon sells a product that “scientists have proven threatens the continuation of human life on earth”—an idiotic statement that no scientist would make and yet is the kind of thing that passes uncontested these days.
Which is ironic since the science has just started to get interesting again.
In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.
It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.
It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.
The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.
Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.
If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.
Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media for a decade or so, and then only because today’s editors and reporters have retired. The climate reporting industry has long since given itself over to propaganda rather than actually reporting on climate science.
The larger lesson here isn’t about climate change. It’s about democratic sclerosis. It’s about the endless multiplication of vested interests that taxpayers and consumers are forced to support in our supposedly free society.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-al-gore-told-donald-trump-1481326892
Complete and total bullshit. Geez you denier morons are dumb. The WSJ ? Nice unbiased source there. LOL Why don't you just give the Koch bros blowjobs?
Exxon profits are more than the GDP of most nations, but yeah, it's the vast green energy conspiracy setting the narrative.
Say bah, sheep.
Al Gore’s Film Sequel Needs To Address Several Inconvenient Facts
MICHAEL BASTASCH
12/10/16
Former Vice President Al Gore will debut a sequel to his global warming film at the upcoming Sundance Film Festival about 10 years after “An Inconvenient Truth” hit theaters.
“Now more than ever we must rededicate ourselves to solving the climate crisis,” Gore said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “But we have reason to be hopeful; the solutions to the crisis are at hand,” Gore said. “I’m deeply honored and grateful that Paramount Pictures and Participant Media have once again taken on the task of bringing the critical story of the climate crisis to the world.”
Gore will have to address several “inconvenient truths” that cast into doubt the credibility of his first film.
The Daily Caller News Foundation highlighted some of the failed predictions Gore made in his 2006 film, which argued the weight of scientific evidence shows global warming would be catastrophic if the world did not stop using fossil fuels.
Here are some additional “inconvenient truths” Gore will have to explain in his new film (though we doubt he will):
Why Are The Climate Models Wrong?
When Gore’s film debuted in 2006, there was a confidence about climate science that only bolstered the dire climate model projections of future temperature rises. Gore’s film came out in the middle of what’s been called the global warming “hiatus” or “slowdown” — a 15 to 20-year period with little to no statistically significant increase in global average temperature.
It’s during this time we saw a huge divergence between what climate models predicted and actual temperature observations. That’s true for satellite-derived temperatures and surface-based readings.
Climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been actually observed in the satellite record, according to Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville.
Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer run one of the major satellite-derived temperature datasets. What they’ve found is there’s been a slight warming trend in the 38-year satellite record.
Surface temperature data collected from weather stations, buoys and ships may have an even bigger problem. Climate models have been over-estimating warming for the past six decades, according to Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger.
Michaels and Knappenberger found observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 have been on the lower end of the mean of what 108 climate models used by government climate scientists predicted it to be.
Where’s The Extreme Weather?
Gore’s 2006 film claimed storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
The film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, and it’s true the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s, as were other countries, like Japan. Storms haven’t been more extreme since 2006 — in fact, storms, droughts, wildfires and other events haven’t become more severe or frequent in the last century.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said as much in its 2013 synthesis report. They said there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”
The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming, so it’d be surprising if he didn’t heed their findings.
Gore’s claim was based on insurance industry findings in 2007 that disaster costs were rising because of global warming. It turned out not to be true, and was only included in the IPCC’s 2007 report because the study’s author thought actual observational evidence would support his claim.
“The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report,” climate researcher Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote in a recent oped. “He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.”
“When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite,” Pielke wrote.
What About Global Greening And The Arctic?
While Gore predicted in his film the Arctic could be free of sea ice “within the next 50 to 70 years,” the former vice president later predicted in 2008 there’d be no Arctic ice by 2013.
There’s still ice. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
Gore’s first film also left out a phenomenon that gets little attention from scientists, but which could bring big benefits to mankind — global greening.
The basic idea is that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will act as a greenhouse and increase the efficiency of plants and other vegetation. Satellites already show a substantial increase in global vegetation.
In other words, even the deserts are greening.
A study published in the journal Nature by a team of 32 scientists from 24 countries found “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated [greening] over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area” with less than “4% of the globe shows [browning].”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/10/al-gores-film-sequel-needs-to-address-several-inconvenient-facts/
MICHAEL BASTASCH
12/10/16
Former Vice President Al Gore will debut a sequel to his global warming film at the upcoming Sundance Film Festival about 10 years after “An Inconvenient Truth” hit theaters.
“Now more than ever we must rededicate ourselves to solving the climate crisis,” Gore said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “But we have reason to be hopeful; the solutions to the crisis are at hand,” Gore said. “I’m deeply honored and grateful that Paramount Pictures and Participant Media have once again taken on the task of bringing the critical story of the climate crisis to the world.”
Gore will have to address several “inconvenient truths” that cast into doubt the credibility of his first film.
The Daily Caller News Foundation highlighted some of the failed predictions Gore made in his 2006 film, which argued the weight of scientific evidence shows global warming would be catastrophic if the world did not stop using fossil fuels.
Here are some additional “inconvenient truths” Gore will have to explain in his new film (though we doubt he will):
Why Are The Climate Models Wrong?
When Gore’s film debuted in 2006, there was a confidence about climate science that only bolstered the dire climate model projections of future temperature rises. Gore’s film came out in the middle of what’s been called the global warming “hiatus” or “slowdown” — a 15 to 20-year period with little to no statistically significant increase in global average temperature.
It’s during this time we saw a huge divergence between what climate models predicted and actual temperature observations. That’s true for satellite-derived temperatures and surface-based readings.
Climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been actually observed in the satellite record, according to Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville.
Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer run one of the major satellite-derived temperature datasets. What they’ve found is there’s been a slight warming trend in the 38-year satellite record.
Surface temperature data collected from weather stations, buoys and ships may have an even bigger problem. Climate models have been over-estimating warming for the past six decades, according to Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger.
Michaels and Knappenberger found observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 have been on the lower end of the mean of what 108 climate models used by government climate scientists predicted it to be.
Where’s The Extreme Weather?
Gore’s 2006 film claimed storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
The film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, and it’s true the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s, as were other countries, like Japan. Storms haven’t been more extreme since 2006 — in fact, storms, droughts, wildfires and other events haven’t become more severe or frequent in the last century.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said as much in its 2013 synthesis report. They said there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”
The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming, so it’d be surprising if he didn’t heed their findings.
Gore’s claim was based on insurance industry findings in 2007 that disaster costs were rising because of global warming. It turned out not to be true, and was only included in the IPCC’s 2007 report because the study’s author thought actual observational evidence would support his claim.
“The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report,” climate researcher Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote in a recent oped. “He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.”
“When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite,” Pielke wrote.
What About Global Greening And The Arctic?
While Gore predicted in his film the Arctic could be free of sea ice “within the next 50 to 70 years,” the former vice president later predicted in 2008 there’d be no Arctic ice by 2013.
There’s still ice. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
Gore’s first film also left out a phenomenon that gets little attention from scientists, but which could bring big benefits to mankind — global greening.
The basic idea is that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will act as a greenhouse and increase the efficiency of plants and other vegetation. Satellites already show a substantial increase in global vegetation.
In other words, even the deserts are greening.
A study published in the journal Nature by a team of 32 scientists from 24 countries found “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated [greening] over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area” with less than “4% of the globe shows [browning].”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/10/al-gores-film-sequel-needs-to-address-several-inconvenient-facts/
Last edited:
An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate
MICHAEL BASTASCH
9:36 PM 05/03/2016
It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.
Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.
Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.
But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?
In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.
Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.
Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.
Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.
In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.
“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.
“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.
Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming
Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.
Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.
Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.
Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”
The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.
“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”
But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.
The North Pole Still Has Ice
Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”
With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.
This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.
The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.
And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.
A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away
Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.
Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.
“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.”
How Accurate Or Inaccurate Was Al Gore's Film?
Highly Accurate Somewhat Accurate Somewhat Inaccurate HIghly Inaccurate
Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.
“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tags: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Arctic, Energy, Hurricane Katrina, The Day After Tomorrow
Privacy: We never share your email
It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.
Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.
Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.
But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?
In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.
Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.
Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.
Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.
In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.
“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.
“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.
Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming
Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.
Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.
Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.
Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”
The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.
“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”
But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.
The North Pole Still Has Ice
Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”
With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.
This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.
The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.
And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.
A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away
Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.
Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.
“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.
Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.
“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/a...al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
MICHAEL BASTASCH
9:36 PM 05/03/2016
It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.
Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.
Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.
But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?
In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.
Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.
Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.
Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.
In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.
“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.
“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.
Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming
Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.
Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.
Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.
Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”
The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.
“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”
But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.
The North Pole Still Has Ice
Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”
With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.
This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.
The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.
And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.
A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away
Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.
Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.
“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.”
How Accurate Or Inaccurate Was Al Gore's Film?
Highly Accurate Somewhat Accurate Somewhat Inaccurate HIghly Inaccurate
Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.
“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tags: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Arctic, Energy, Hurricane Katrina, The Day After Tomorrow
Privacy: We never share your email
It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.
Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.
Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.
But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?
In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.
Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.
Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.
Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.
In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.
“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.
“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.
Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming
Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.
Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.
Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.
Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”
The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.
“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”
But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.
The North Pole Still Has Ice
Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”
With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.
This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.
The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.
“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.
And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.
A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away
Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.
Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.
“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.
Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.
“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/a...al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
Environmental Studies degree. lolComplete and total bullshit. Geez you denier morons are dumb. The WSJ ? Nice unbiased source there. LOL Why don't you just give the Koch bros blowjobs?
Exxon profits are more than the GDP of most nations, but yeah, it's the vast green energy conspiracy setting the narrative.
Say bah, sheep.