a mounting movement to discredit research that our world is warming.
In recent months a report by the United Nation's International Panel
on Climate Change had portions
retracted due to inaccuracy, leading to questions about its chief
Rajendra Pachauri. And in Britain, the fallout from the Climate
Research Unit leaked
email scandal continues.Al Gore, oft a popular
target of snide remarks by climate change skeptics, is back in the
spotlight after delivering an impassioned
commentary about these recent events, published in The
New York Times. His
message is relatively straightforward; he writes, "Scientific
enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is
important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming
remains unchanged."In the piece, Gore says he wishes
that climate change wasn't real. He states, "It would be
an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global
warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable
calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human
civilization as we know it...We would no longer have to worry that
our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal
generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings
that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the
naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major
National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made
a huge mistake.""I, for one, genuinely wish that
the climate crisis were an illusion."In the article he
directly addresses the recent controversies, a somewhat unusual
tactic. He does, however, take issue with the idea that the
mistakes amount to intentional deception or change the accuracy of
the overall picture.He likens climate denialism to denials
about tobacco's health impact. He writes, "Over the years,
as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and
companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained
pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more
entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest
regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the
marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the
link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart."Gore
is advocating the "cap-and-trade" bill championed by
President Barack Obama be passed. The bill was passed
by the U.S. House and is currently being debated by the U.S.
Senate. In his op-ed, Gore writes, "Because the world
still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the
Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before
the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far
short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a
meaningful solution."Mr. Gore is deeply invested in the
topic of climate change in many ways. He made millions off his
best-selling book and movie, The
He also reportedly earns at least five figures for speaking
engagements at college campuses and public locations. Gore,
already quite wealthy, has also invested heavily in government
subsidized green-tech firms, leading some to claim that he is a
"carbon billionaire".Gore has drawn a great
deal of criticism, however. Donald Trump, a rather famous
climate skeptic, has gone as far as to suggest that he should be
stripped of the Nobel
Peace Prize he received for his climate work. Senator
Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), tweeted a
snide response to Gore's column, writing, "It's going to keep
snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle'."Gore actually
discusses the greater than usual U.S. snowfall in his piece, though.
He writes, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as
fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth,
yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures
have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting
significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing
heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions,
including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important
not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the
climate for the snowstorm. "
quote: He also reportedly earns at least five figures for speaking engagements at college campuses and public locations.
quote: How did all the really pro-Sarah comments get modded up so quickly and the pro-Gore stuff get modded down so quickly?
quote: The rhyme was unintentional.
quote: I personally think we need to get off foreign oil for the following reasons, in order.
quote: That is basically the whole point of emissions trading: to make millions for those invested in the scheme .
quote: I love how you cherry pick my comments.
quote: THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.
quote: Weren't you one of the ones that go by the look-out-the-window science? Didn't you just post that it was snowing a few weeks ago so GW is a lie?
quote: All studies should be peer reviewed.
quote: I am talking about the fact that 20 million years ago there were no industries, human related sources of carbon dioxide producing "extra" ("unnatural") amount of CO2.
quote: do I really have to explain to you what causes climate cycles on earth?
quote: Overall conditions are only going to worsen with the rising human population
quote: that is basically the whole point of emissions trading; to stimulate development of greener energy.
quote: Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. This policy makes them less competitive, that is basically the whole point of emissions trading; to stimulate development of greener energy.
quote: There's a mounting movement to discredit research that our world is warming.
quote: How about the fact that the earth stopped warming 15 years ago?
quote: How about the fact that the earth warmed faster from 1860-1880 than it did 1970-1995? How about the fact that it was warmer during Medieval times (the MCO) than it is today?
quote: How about the fact that rising CO2 levels have never before caused runaway warming,
quote: How about the fact that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, rather than accelerating?
quote: How about the fact that the IPCC has been found to be intentionally falsifying its claims?
quote: How about the fact that every single prediction made by AGW alarmists about how the world would be in 2010 turned out to be false?
quote: And worse of all, how about the fact, that even if the IPCC is correct, it'll still be far cheaper to take a few easy mitigatory actions, rather than to reduce carbon emissions?
quote: "How about the fact that the earth stopped warming 15 years ago? False"
quote: "Without researching it, I dunno. Maybe there was more atmospheric CO2 in the earlier periods. Maybe there was a difference in solar activity. If you know, why don't you just go ahead and tell us all?"
quote: Straw man. Runaway warming isn't claimed
quote: It's still rising during whatever periods that you didn't name.
quote: Even if that were true... Piltdown Man
quote: True. And even the scientist running the East Anglia Climate Center (one of the shrillest voices in support of AGW) now admits [the earth stopped warming 15 years ago]:
quote: In other words -- "forget the laws of physics, I still want to believe!" And you call us creationists?
quote: What rock have you been living under? Here's just a FEW of the thousands of times runaway warming has been claimed:
quote: If the sea was rising much faster thousands of years ago than it is today, then there's no reason to believe that lowering CO2 emissions are going to have any affect on the process.
quote: Flawed analogy. Piltdown man had nothing to do with the core science of evolution. The IPCC found faking data is more akin to showing Charles Darwin faked his research.
quote: And even the scientist running the East Anglia Climate Center (one of the shrillest voices in support of AGW) now admits [the earth stopped warming 15 years ago]....There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 . Since 2001, there has actually been very slight cooling.
quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warmingA: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?A: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
quote: You said "runaway warming isn't being claimed". When I show it is, you try to redefine the term based on what you think it should mean?After a cop out like this, why should we take anything you say seriously? You obviously have no interest in intellectual honesty.
quote: And for the record, many people (including James Hansen himself) have claimed that runaway warming would result in the destruction of a significant portion of the earth's biosphere.
quote: "A lot of factors go into global temperature change and sea level change."Again, the cop out. Whenever serious flaws in AGW orthodoxy are pointed out, an AGW alarmist always falls back on phrases like "there's a lot of factors" and "we can't really say for sure".What happened to "certainty" and "consensus" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
quote: AGW theory predicts that temperatures should have risen faster than ever before. Instead, they've actually declined very slightly since 2001.
quote: Stacey, you are remarkably adept at dodging questions. I'll ask a few of them again...
quote: why should we be alarmed, when all the truly frightening claims about AGW (flooded cities, mass desertification, large scale temperature chances) have all been shown to be without basis? Even if AGW turns out to be true, its going to be anything from a mild annoyance to a huge benefit to mankind.
quote: "I'm suspending judgment as to whether temperatures failed to rise during the period"In other words, despite irrefutable satellite temperature data, and the admissions of some of the most famous AGW supporters on the planet, you still fail to believe the evidence of your own eyes?Are you normally this irrational?
quote: "But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period"Wrong again, courtesy of Hansen, et. al 1988:http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_et...Look at fig. 3, pg 1947.
quote: Why argue when you don't know the issues at hand?
quote: But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period. I think it would predict a rise, given a rise in atmospheric CO2, all else being equal.
quote: As I've said before, I don't know the answers to some of your questions. Acknowledging ignorance isn't a dodge. If you know the answers, please tell me what they are.
quote: That's a lie. Remember the famous "hockey stick" graph ?
quote: lol so you don't know critical points, but you'll still argue for AWG ?
quote: language that somehow manages to be an even dumber misuse of terms.
quote: You use a term like "even dumber" then want to lecture the rest of us on our education?
quote: I think your Piltdown hoax analogy is best applied to the alarmists. They took a single warm year (1998) and used it to scare the rest of us into thinking some catastrophe is coming, when no one in the research community is actually saying that at all.
quote: Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important...
quote: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...
quote: You moved the bar. I said show us a paper that showed human emissions were causing catastrophe.
quote: you didn't even pick a research paper, you picked a synthesis paper. Do you know the difference?
quote: And you certainly picked a doozie of an author. By Kevin Trenberth himself, one of the scientists at the center of the "Climategate" scandal of faked and altered data galore. Let's here what Trenberth says TODAY, shall we, rather than 7 years ago. quote: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate... K. Trenberth, Oct 2009. In other words, its not his pet theory that's wrong, its the real world. Care to try again?
quote: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...
quote: "I'm involved in 102 of the e-mails," Trenberth said. "I don't see anything embarrassing to me particularly. There are a few things that can be taken out of context, and they have been."That includes the line about a "lack of warming," which Trenberth says was part of a longer message intended to highlight shortcomings in scientists' understanding of recent temperature fluctuations."We've always had some problems with the observing system," he said. "It's obviously not as good as we would like, and that's true of the temperature record, as well. What this is saying is we need better observations. What it's not saying is that global warming is not here."
quote: Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't . The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_... Kevin
quote: Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin
quote: Mike Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it
quote: Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.CheersPhilProf. Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784University of East AngliaNorwich Email email@example.comNR4 7TJUK
quote: Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements.
quote: (Apparently the DT software thinks my comments are spam now.
quote: Stop wiggling. Do you or don't you believe in AGW.
quote: perhaps you'd like to retract your statement that the earth didn't stop warming in 1995?
quote: "You're not gonna see a buttoned-down group of people like research scientists publish papers literally saying "'Catastrophe' "Oh really? How about the book "The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe ", by James Hansen, head of NASA's GISS:
quote: I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW.
quote: Does Gore give GW research a bad name? Yes. He's an alarmist.
quote: But at the same time, most of the people commenting on GW stories here at DailyTech give skeptics a bad name.
quote: Runaway warming isn't claimed.
quote: I think if AGW is true, there will be winners and losers as regional climate patterns change.
quote: You've painted yourself into a corner unfortunately. So you're now claiming that no single published research paper has ever stated we're facing catastrophic results as a result of global warming?
quote: Ah, a Wikipedia link to the famously discredited hockey-stick graph. I hope you won't embarrass us or you by claiming that has any validity.
quote: " I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW. Thus, I'm not "wiggling""If you're not wiggling, answer the question. Do you or do you not believe in AGW? You've ignored the direct question four times now.
quote: The context is clear. Trenberth can say it was part of a "larger discussion" all he wants, but its clearly just damage control. He was upset because the temperature record shows no warming, and he doesn't understand why.
quote: "Well, both of the "umpire" analyses that I've seen say that the "smoking gun" lines from the hacked emails have been taken out of context. "Are you intentionally trying to lie to us? Or are you just unable to read your own links? They say no such thing. One of your links even says specifically that it demonstrates the scientists involved "harbored private doubts" about AGW.
quote: The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
quote: E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented.
quote: "In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
quote: you dont resort to personnel attack like the other idiot.
quote: Plus (perhaps more importantly for some of you), I just saved myself $2000 a year by installing a wood-burning boiler (wood from a managed forest, one tree is cut down, anther is planted), compared to the oil burning boiler I had before. 3 years and I have paid off the installation costs.....
quote: Thus the amount of CO2 released when the tree burns is equal to the OC2 it took out of the atmosphere while it grew.
quote: doesn't excuse your pitiful science and critical thinking skills.
quote: Still, this all without asking the multi-trillion dollar question of: “Is CO2 actually as bad as the global warming/climate change/global cooling/insert next big climate label here/and so on.. crowd makes it out to be?”
quote: They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart."
quote: "Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.-Al Gore (in 1988 speech to Southern tobacco farmers while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President)
quote: I noticed that too it seems hes starting to quote references to try and buy time instead of prove his argument
quote: warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow.
quote: For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions."So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
quote: 2) Nobody can say for certain what global warming will do to specific geographic areas. more precipitation, colder winters, less precipitation, scorching summers, violent storms... all of that will depend on what happens to the weather patterns as average global temperatures increase. we can try to predict the impact of warmer temperatures in local areas by using weather models, but they are far from accurate (we cant predict local weather accurately 2 weeks from now, let alone 100 years).