Top 10 reasons Gore was wrong
As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.
People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:
While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”
Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…
Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony
1 – Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.
Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.
The Science is not Settled
By David Siegel via www.ClimateCurious.com
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 • Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 • Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
3 • There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 • New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
5 • CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
6 • There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
7 • Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
9 • No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.
10 • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
Also See: How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic (wattsupwiththat)
Here is an entertaining and well researched video documentary by John Coleman, creator of The Weather Channel.
A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.
By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
Question: What happens when a skeptic like myself questions the global warming theory in a facebook group that considers themselves skeptics?
Answer: I get labeled a conspiracist, conspiratard, sheeptard, right-winger, troll, denialist and all kinds of other interesting things. It was also suggested that i do certain things to myself and go away.
As Mr. Spock would say, “Fascinating, Jim.”
I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?“, because it’s really two questions:
- Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
- Are humans responsible?
Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:
- I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
- I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.
It’s this position that gets people all worked up. But why do feel this way? Because i have questions.
What period of time are global warming believers referring to when they use phrases like, “the warmest ‘on record'”, “since records have been kept” or “since measurements began”?
Al Gore is notorious for using these kinds of references to a mystery time frame. When he says “this is the hottest year ‘since measurements began'”, am i the only one wondering when “the measurements began”? After all, if the measurements began at 5 o’clock this morning, then by noon it really would be the warmest since measurements began, wouldn’t it?
Here is Al Gore from 1997 using these types of vague references to a mysterious period of time:
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) used similar language in their 1990 Scientific Assessment report when they wrote, “the five warmest years on record have been in the 1980s.”
Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? It almost sounds like they’re saying, “the five warmest years since the beginning of time have been in the 1980s,” or “the five warmest years EVER have been in the 1980s,” doesn’t it?
The truth is, when the IPCC, Al Gore and the other global warming theorists compare temperatures to “the record” (i.e. “The warmest on record“) they are actually referring to the last 150 years of temperature data. Allow me to explain. Here are the temperatures from the last 1,000 years:
With current temperatures located on the far right of the graph and the dotted line representing temperature conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century, you should notice something right off the bat.
Beginning about 950 AD and continuing for about 400 years until almost 1350 AD there is a period of time when the temperatures were warmer than they are today. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – 1990), this warmer period is referred to as the “Medieval Warm Period.”
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than any temperatures seen today, so global warming theorists must use a period of time after the Medieval Warm Period to make claims of record breaking temperatures.
Here is that period of time referred to as “the record” by global warming theorists when they say “… on ‘the record'”:
The above graph is “the record” as depicted in the 1990 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Scientific Assessment Report. It only goes back approximately 150 years to the year 1860.
From the same IPCC report: “The instrumental record of surface temperature is fragmentary until the mid-nineteenth century, after which it slowly improves . . . ” and it “shows current estimates of … surface temperature over land and ocean since 1860. ” [all emphasis mine]
So when the IPCC and other global warming theorists say, “the warmest temperatures on record,” what they’re really saying is, “the warmest temperatures since 1860!”
Now look again at the 1,000 year temperature graph, this time with “the record” put in perspective:
It becomes clear why global warming theorists say “the warmest temperatures on record” - because if they were honest and said “the warmest temperatures since 1860,” the deception would become as painfully obvious as it is here.
What else do you notice? Notice where “the record” begins on the 1,000 year timeline. It begins at the end of a period in history called the “Little Ice Age.” The Little Ice Age (LIA) is a 500 year period of cooling that occurred from about 1350 to approximately 1850.
I’m sure it’s just pure happenstance that the purveyors of global warming use the end of an ice age as their temperature comparison starting point. Sort of like wanting to convince your friends you’re a gambling guru by bragging about how you won $3,000 on your last day in Las Vegas while conveniently forgetting to mention how you lost $5,000 on your first day in Vegas. You’re the man (until your friends learn the inconvenient truth)!
For more perspective let’s go back some more. Here is 8,000 years of temperatures:
 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, Page 202.
 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
 Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
But they all agree: Something stinks to high heaven!
Every time there’s a shooting at an elementary school or a bombing at a marathon, people harboring an obsession with — or financial interest in — conspiracy theories will jump on inconsistencies to tear down the “official narrative” and replace it with their own, no matter how far-fetched. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before the conspiracists set their eternally skeptical eyes on another target. Meet the Edward Snowden truthers.
What’s surprising about the Snowden theories is that one might think he’d be a sympathetic figure to people deeply skeptical of government power. But instead of holding him up as hero (or even a traitor), some are intent on labeling him a co-conspirator.
Perhaps the most prominent Snowden truther is Naomi Wolf, whom Al Gore reportedly paid $15,000 a month to advise his presidential campaign. People were a little surprised Friday when the prominent feminist author and activist posted a lengthy essay on her Facebook page wondering if Snowden may actually be a plant from “the Police State.”
Wolf wrote that she has a “creeping concern” that Snowden “is not who he purports to be,” mostly because Wolf expects leakers to be disheveled, inarticulate and litigious (apparently based on her experience with Jullian Assange), and Snowden is none of these things. “To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points,” she wrote. And his girlfriend “happens to pole-dance?” — very suspicious! “It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled,” she wrote. Ergo: Snowden is likely a government stooge.
The missive was rightly mocked online, and predicated on a number of factual misunderstandings. Still, Wolf is hardly alone. On the fever swamps of the Internet’s conspiracy sites, plenty of posts dissect Snowden’s biography and find gaps that can only be filled by CIA dirty tricks, apparently.
Webster Tarpley, a Lyndon LaRouche ally who hosts an antiwar radio show that often dips into 9/11 trutherism, proposed this theory Friday: “The most likely hypothesis for Snowden is that he’s a triple agent.” Here’s how that would work: On the first level, Snowden works for the NSA (via Booz Allen), and on the second level, he’s a whistle-blower. As for the third level: “Then at bottom, where is his bread really buttered? CIA. At the bottom, he’s a CIA agent all along,” Tarpley said on his radio program. The CIA’s purpose with Snowden is both to weaken Obama and push the president to intervene in Syria, which, conveniently, the White House announced it would do Friday. See?
Here is a more likely scenario. Snowden never saw any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. Instead, he was either used or volunteered as a CIA operative to carry the endless turf war between CIA and NSA a new step forward. […]
This was a covert op launched by the CIA against a chief rival, the NSA. NSA, the agency that’s far bigger than the CIA. NSA, the agency that’s been taking over intelligence gathering, that considers itself superior to everybody else in the intelligence field. The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy.
This is the more plausible scenario to Rappoport because he just doesn’t believe Snowden’s biography, as he wrote in more detail at Activist Post. For instance, how did he sign up for special forces training if he never completed high school? “These are red flags. They raise questions. Serious ones,” he wrote.
A widely shared blog post from Scott Creighton, meanwhile, calls Snowden a “manufactured hero” and expands the conspiracy to include . . .
- Here come the Edward Snowden truthers (salon.com)
- New Conspiracy Theorists: Snowden Truthers (newser.com)
- Jon Rappoport ~ NSA Leaker: Are There Serious Cracks In Ed Snowden’s Story? (shiftfrequency.com)
- Is Naomi Wolf working for the NSA? (counterpunch.org)
Just a quick note.
I told him the movie is fiction, filled with either unproven assertions or simple, flat-out factual errors. He was stuck neck-deep in the rabbit hole and refused to even discuss the issue. Typical conspiracist. Ask them to to provide evidence supporting their alternate reality and they scamper away screaming “Troll! Trollllll!”
Mission accomplished. Anyway . . .
So i thought to myself, there may be other skeptics out there in need of a great source of information to discuss the bullcrap in “Why In The World Are They Spraying.” Here is a great discussion forum with all the information you’ll need.
You needn’t join or participate. Just reading the discussion is a great education. Unlike conspiracists, the good people at MetaBunk go to great lengths to justify their assertions.
Here is the link: Factual Errors in “Why In The World Are They Spraying”.
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)