Al Gore the idiot

[Bronx33]

Heck he can't even debate any of the facts in his own movie and now the tard can't even keep track of what scientist said what.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”


However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Um, no - you have it bass-ackwards again:

The guy you voted for was the idiot.

[ZONA]

Big deal, there is a real picture there right in front of your eyes and all you want to do is focus on some skewed figures and worry about Gore.

Try and focus on the problem. So let's take the more conservative figure, that the polar caps could be almost non-existent within 20 years or so. The world is heating up and the isotopes in the ice do not lie, even though conservatives try to tell us it's natural. Yeah, some heating up and cooling is natural but the levels we see today are off the charts. What's happening right now today is not natural and here pretty damn soon it's going to be supernatural and then what will all the conservatives be saying "how much do you want for the boat sir?".

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Big deal, there is a real picture there right in front of your eyes and all you want to do is focus on some skewed figures and worry about Gore.

Try and focus on the problem. So let's take the more conservative figure, that the polar caps could be almost non-existent within 20 years or so. The world is heating up and the isotopes in the ice do not lie, even though conservatives try to tell us it's natural. Yeah, some heating up and cooling is natural but the levels we see today are off the charts. What's happening right now today is not natural and here pretty damn soon it's going to be supernatural and then what will all the conservatives be saying "how much do you want for the boat sir?".

Summer time sea ice in the artic in the late 70's was about 5.5m sq km. In the late 00's it is about 3.5m sq km. At this rate it would take about 50 years to get to ice free.

Also keep in the mind the winter sea ice in the late 70's was about 15.5m sq km. And in the late 00's about 14.5m sq km. At this rate the artic would be ice free in about 400 years during the winter.

Now at the same time the antartic sea ice is increasing. It was about 1.8m sq km in the late 70's and is about 2.2m sq km in the late 00's. Why no talk of when the southern sea ice will engulf Australia?

If these variations are not natural how do you explain the medevil warm period?

Why is Greenland called Greenland? Perhaps it was once green?

"The settlements, such as Brattahlið, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[8] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly."

[Bronx33]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Big deal, there is a real picture there right in front of your eyes and all you want to do is focus on some skewed figures and worry about Gore.

Try and focus on the problem. So let's take the more conservative figure, that the polar caps could be almost non-existent within 20 years or so. The world is heating up and the isotopes in the ice do not lie, even though conservatives try to tell us it's natural. Yeah, some heating up and cooling is natural but the levels we see today are off the charts. What's happening right now today is not natural and here pretty damn soon it's going to be supernatural and then what will all the conservatives be saying "how much do you want for the boat sir?".

Iam going to go hang out at al gores house since he bought one .07 miles from the pacific ocean ( it has to be safe) since he never lies.

http://www.starwoodhotels.com/stregi...ropertyID=1511


( zero global warming in the last 10 years) and that is a fact you can trust.

[Bronx33]

Lets add that gore quoted that the hacked emails were over 10 years old i guess thats were rastaman got his info from


also lets not forget:

This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. Gore in an 11/12/09 interview on NBC’s tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, speaking on geothermal energy, champion of slide show science, can’t even get the temperature of earth’s mantle right, claiming “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.

Just for reference:


Temperature of the sun’s corona: 1–2 million kelvin

Temperature of the sun’s photosphere: 6,000 kelvin

Temperature of the Earths mantle, more than “2 kilometers or so down”: between 500 °C to 900 °C (773 to 1173 kelvin)

Watching Gore make a complete scientific idiot of himself on national TV: priceless

[mhgaffney]

Bronx will be sucking air if a piece of the Greenland ice field slips into the Atlantic and wipes out the Atlantic basin.

It can happen -- if the warming continues. Similar things happened at the end of the last ice age -- with catastrophic consequences.

Ever heard of the muck beds of Alaska and Siberia?

Gore warned about this in his movie.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Yeah, some heating up and cooling is natural but the levels we see today are off the charts.

That's not even true. When people say "off the charts" they're typically referring to the "hockey stick" spike in the NOAA ice core data:



The problem is the ice core data goes back way further. Here, you'll see a spike referred to as the "medevil warming period" which spikes higher than what we're seeing now:




The problem is, the ice cores show a warming period that got even warmer than that if you look back further:




...and then plenty more fluctuations if you go back into the ice core record even further than that:




If you go back even further than that, you can see that the warming we're experiencing now is wholly unremarkable:




Go back even further and this whole issue really starts to look like a joke...




And even further than that...




The problem that you guys have with this debate is that you keep using words like "unprecedented" and "off the charts," or as Al Gore just did, exaggerate the detriment (polar caps melting within 5 years, etc.).

[barryr]

Yes, glad we have such objectivity in science today: man is causing global warming and to prove it, we'll distort and lie about findings, but it's just to show how big the threat is even though our evidence is contradictory. All in the name of science. Great.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by barryr

Yes, glad we have such objectivity in science today: man is causing global warming and to prove it, we'll distort and lie about findings, but it's just to show how big the threat is even though our evidence is contradictory. All in the name of science. Great.

Wow - the Exxon brownie hounds are so desperate they're resorting to the old Dan Rather/Memo-gate slight of hand again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Bronx will be sucking air if a piece of the Greenland ice field slips into the Atlantic and wipes out the Atlantic basin.

It can happen -- if the warming continues. Similar things happened at the end of the last ice age -- with catastrophic consequences.

Ever heard of the muck beds of Alaska and Siberia?

Gore warned about this in his movie.

Now here's the real "Climategate" of the Copenhagen Conference -- the so-called Danish Text.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thega...d-to-know.aspx

The bottom line: rich nations are balking at their obligation, post-Kyoto, to help developing nations develop the same way they have done so already, usually at the expense of the rest of the world.

The Al Gore jokes are on the uptick as well. Then there's the mouth-breathers who say there can't possibly be global warming because it's so cold! The true disbelievers. It's all about making money today and to hell with tomorrow. It's later than we think.

[mhgaffney]

The nuclear scientists agree with MhGaffney that we are on the precipice.


Doomsday Clock Overview

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/d...clock/overview

The Doomsday Clock conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction--the figurative midnight--and monitors the means humankind could use to obliterate itself. First and foremost, these include nuclear weapons, but they also encompass climate-changing technologies and new developments in the life sciences that could inflict irrevocable harm.

Nuclear

The nuclear age dawned in the 1940s when scientists learned how to release the energy stored within the atom. Immediately, they thought of two potential uses--an unparalleled weapon and a new energy source. The United States built the first atomic bombs during World War II, which they used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Within two decades, Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and France had also established nuclear weapon programs. Since then, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have built nuclear weapons as well.

For most of the Cold War, overt hostility between the United States and Soviet Union, coupled with their enormous nuclear arsenals, defined the nuclear threat. The U.S. arsenal peaked at about 30,000 warheads in the mid-1960s and the Soviet arsenal at 40,000 warheads in the 1980s, dwarfing all other nuclear weapon states. The scenario for nuclear holocaust was simple: Heightened tensions between the two jittery superpowers would lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. Today, the potential for an accidental or inadvertent nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia remains, with both countries anachronistically maintaining more than 1,000 warheads on high alert, ready to launch within tens of minutes, even though a deliberate attack by Russia or the United States on the other seems improbable.

Unfortunately, however, in a globalized world with porous national borders, rapid communications, and expanded commerce in dual-use technologies, nuclear know-how and materials travel more widely and easily than before--raising the possibility that terrorists could obtain such materials and crudely construct a nuclear device of their own. The materials necessary to construct a bomb pervade the world--in part due to programs initiated by the United States and Soviet Union to spread civilian nuclear power technology and research reactors during the Cold War.

As a result, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials, substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium, one of the materials necessary for a bomb, remain in more than 40 non-weapon states. Save for Antarctica, every continent contains at least one country with civilian highly enriched uranium. Even with the improvement of nuclear reactor design and international controls provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), proliferation concerns persist, as the components and infrastructure for a civilian nuclear power program can also be used to construct nuclear weapons.

Much of the recent discussions focuses on Iran and its pursuit of a civilian nuclear power capability, but Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, estimates that another 20 to 30 countries possess the capabilities, if not the intent, to pursue the bomb. Meanwhile, the original nuclear weapon states (in particular, Britain, France, Russia, and the United States) continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals, with little effort to relinquish these weapons. All of which leads many to believe that the world is embarking on a second nuclear age.

Climate Change

Fossil-fuel technologies such as coal-burning plants powered the industrial revolution, bringing unparalleled economic prosperity to many parts of the world. But in the 1950s, scientists began measuring year-to-year changes in the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that they could relate to fossil-fuel combustion, and they began to see the implications for Earth's temperature and for climate change.

Today, the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. These gases warm Earth's continents and oceans by acting like a giant blanket that keeps the sun's heat from leaving the atmosphere, melting ice and triggering a number of ecological changes that cause an increase in global temperature. Even if carbon-dioxide emissions were to cease immediately, the extra gases already added to the atmosphere, which linger for centuries, would continue to raise sea level and change other characteristics of the Earth for hundreds of years.

The most authoritative scientific group on the issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggests that warming on the order of 2-10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years is a distinct possibility if the industrialized world doesn't curb its carbon dioxide emissions habit. Effects could include wide-ranging, dramatic changes. One drastic result: a 3- to 34-inch rise in sea level, leading to more coastal erosion, increased flooding during storms, and, in some regions such as the Indus River Delta in Bangladesh and the Mississippi River Delta in the United States, permanent inundation. This sea-level rise will affect coastal cities (New York, Miami, Shanghai, London) the most, compelling major shifts in human settlement patterns.

Inland, the IPCC predicts that another century of temperature increases could place severe stress on forests, alpine regions, and other ecosystems, threaten human health as mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects and rodents spread lethal viruses and bacteria over larger geographical regions, and harm agricultural efforts by reducing rainfall in many food-producing areas while at the same time increasing flooding in others--any of which could contribute to mass migrations and wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources.

Biosecurity

Advances in genetics and biology over the last five decades have inspired a host of new possibilities--both positive and troubling.

With greater understanding of genetic material and of how physiological systems interact, biologists can fight disease better and improve overall human health. Scientists already have begun to develop bioengineered vaccines for common diseases such as dengue fever and certain forms of hepatitis. They are using these tools to develop other innovative medical solutions, including cells that have been bioengineered to serve as physiological "pacemakers." The mapping of the complete human genome in 2001 allows for even greater understanding of human functioning. As a consequence of the Human Genome Project, scientists have already identified more than 1,800 genes associated with particular diseases.

But along with their potential benefits, these technological advances raise the possibility that individuals or non-state actors could create dangerous known or novel pathogens. Additionally, researchers with the best intentions could inadvertently create novel pathogens that could harm humans or other species. For example, in 2001, researchers in Australia reported that they had accidentally created a new, virulent strain of the mousepox virus while attempting to genetically engineer a more effective rodent control method.

Unlike the biological weapons of the last century, these new tools could create a limitless variety of threats, from new types of “nonlethal” agents, to viruses that sterilize their hosts, to others that incapacitate whole systems within an organism. The wide availability of bioengineering knowledge and tools, along with the ease with which individuals can obtain specific fragments of genetic material (some can be ordered through the mail or over the internet), could allow these capabilities to find their way into unspecified hands or even those of backyard hobbyists. Such potential dangers are forcing scientists, institutions, and industry to develop self-governing mechanisms to prevent misuse. But developing a system to ensure the safe use of bioengineering, without impeding beneficial research and development, could pose the greatest international science and security challenge during the next 50 years.

[mhgaffney]

"Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight

17 JANUARY 2007
On January 17, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. Reflecting global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and the climate crisis, the decision by the Bulletin's Board of Directors was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.

In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the Bulletin Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2,000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change.

The Bulletin statement explains: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."

It continues: "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That's not even true. When people say "off the charts" they're typically referring to the "hockey stick" spike in the NOAA ice core data:



The problem is the ice core data goes back way further. Here, you'll see a spike referred to as the "medevil warming period" which spikes higher than what we're seeing now:




The problem is, the ice cores show a warming period that got even warmer than that if you look back further:




...and then plenty more fluctuations if you go back into the ice core record even further than that:




If you go back even further than that, you can see that the warming we're experiencing now is wholly unremarkable:




Go back even further and this whole issue really starts to look like a joke...




And even further than that...




The problem that you guys have with this debate is that you keep using words like "unprecedented" and "off the charts," or as Al Gore just did, exaggerate the detriment (polar caps melting within 5 years, etc.).

Very nice job of presenting that data.

[Taco John]

Thanks. I don't think data is going to convince a lot of these folks though.

[Rohirrim]

We probably don't want to drop back down to the historical mean on this chart. That was an ice age. In fact, from 10,000 to the present age contains the entire history of civilization. We've been riding a spike for 10,000 years. We should all hope we don't do anything to make it drop back down the the average.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That's not even true. When people say "off the charts" they're typically referring to the "hockey stick" spike in the NOAA ice core data:

Well, no, but don't let visiting WTFWT make you think you understand the real science.

[Bronx33]

Crazy AL still opening his piehole....

Gore again, this time it is about mosquitoes, malaria, and elevation. Some history checking by mosquito epidemiologist Paul Reiter reveals he’s wrong about Nairobi. Turns out that some species can live as high as 10,000 feet. Even as far back as 1927 in this letter to Time Magazine, people knew of mosquitoes at the snow line. A 1960 study shows mosquitoes in the California Sierra Nevada mountains and another shows mosquitoes in the mountains of Africa. Of course those aren’t malaria carrying anopheles mosquitoes, but I’ll point out that Gore was not specific about which mosquitoes were “climbing”. And if there is indeed a mosquito borne malaria problem in Nairobi, there’s this contradictory evidence: In a presentation during the 8th International Conference on Urban Health, held in Nairobi 18–23 October 2009, it was stated that of nearly one thousand Nairobi residents tested, none were positive for malaria.

There has been a resurgence of malaria in Kenya though. It may have something to do with this: Kenyan scientists are embroiled in a deepening controversy over whether Kenya should lift a ban on the pesticide DDT in a bid to reduce deaths from malaria.

http://www.mosquitoes.org/anopheles.html

If look at this page you will find a listing for the native Anopheles freeborni listed as a malaria vector and with habitat that ranges at least up to 6000 feet.
From the UK Spectator by Paul Reiter

The inconvenient truth about malaria

[Broncojef]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

We probably don't want to drop back down to the historical mean on this chart. That was an ice age. In fact, from 10,000 to the present age contains the entire history of civilization. We've been riding a spike for 10,000 years. We should all hope we don't do anything to make it drop back down the the average.

The point is the planet has been warming and cooling irregardless of humans and any false science Al Gore wants us to believe should be weighed in a smart fashion. Simply declaring the debate over and passing cap and trade regulations to further kill our economy is just plain stupid.

[W*GS]

Don't believe much of what you read at WTFWT...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hock...te-change.html

One minor point that always escapes denialists - one location isn't the planet.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

"Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight

17 JANUARY 2007
On January 17, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. Reflecting global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and the climate crisis, the decision by the Bulletin's Board of Directors was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.

In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the Bulletin Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2,000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change.

The Bulletin statement explains: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."

It continues: "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."

Yeah but we should let Iran build nukes right? They need to defend themselves from the evil Israelis.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Don't believe much of what you read at WTFWT...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hock...te-change.html

One minor point that always escapes denialists - one location isn't the planet.

This is a no BS question and I would like to understand your position on the science as you seemed to have studied this pretty extensively.

Was there a medieval warm period and what was the temperature at its peak versus today?

[Bronco Yoda]

According to the New York Times I believe...VP Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Was there a medieval warm period and what was the temperature at its peak versus today?

Since it appears the MWP was a regional phenomenon, not a global one, asking what the temperature was depends on location.

The various flavors of temperature charts done by denialists (to show the MWP was as warm or warmer than now) are almost always from single locations or very small areas.

[Gort]

Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda

According to the New York Times I believe...VP Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

i've been telling people for 20 years that man-made global warming is a scam. follow the money... the proof is there for everyone to see.

this is all about CONTROL. by defining CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" and all emitters of CO2 as polluters, you give the government enough rationale for controlling all aspects of human activity. we exhale CO2, therefore we are polluters! what's next? culling unwanted humans from the planet in the name of saving the earth? too many people exhaling CO2 cannot be tolerated... so let's kill a few hundred million here or there! is that what's coming?

of course, plant life depends on CO2 to survive, but let's not discuss that.

global warming hysteria is all bull****. the people who embrace it blindly are fools. the people pulling the strings behind it are marxists (cap and trade) and elitists (the UN crowd) who believe themselves to have the right to tell other people how to live, in the name of saving the planet.