Al Gore’s claim, drawn from climate “science,” that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 stands as a glowing symbol of the absurdity of climate change. Is there any other scientific discipline that makes false predictions 99% of the time?..
Just asking....
Years ago a liberal friend gave me a copy of one of Al Gore's books and I read it. He was going on and on about how terrible it was to cut down trees to build homes. He advocated using galvanized steel, instead. (Yeah, right. Ever see how steel is made?) I did a little digging on Gore and came to find out he'd invested heavily in zinc mining. Care to guess what is used to make galvanized steel? Yep, zinc.
After I read the book, I did the decent thing....I composted it.
Similar to "Why do you kill animals for food? Couldn't you just buy meat at the grocery store like everyone else?"
Lol...Nice...
I watched Lester Holt interview him last night on NBC, and the questions were all geared towards "everything Gore claimed in his documentary was prescient." It infuriated me so much I ended up yelling at the TV. Everything in that piece of garbage has been refuted as pseudo-science and/or fraud.
The Danish Meteorological Society measures snowfall, temperatures, and the depth of ice in the Arctic. Each year is relatively predictable, and, this year of note, ice is being added ahead of the average rate. A similar situation is apparent in Antarctica. Extremely high temperatures have been measured in the Arctic, approaching 100F, several times over the past 100+ years.
There is absolutely no causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Temperatures were MUCH warmer in the 1930s when CO2 was roughly half the amount today. And record fire seasons today? Bah! We lose annually between 7-12 million acres to fire, but back in the 1930s it was 50-60 million.
And finally, there is no such thing as out-of-control sea level rise. It has been rising annually at a linear rate of 2-3mm per year for centuries. Those locations where it appears as if the sea is rising at an amount greater than that is due to a phenomenon called land subsidence. Yes, the land is actually sinking. The most common reason for this occurring is overpumping of ground water, allowing the bedrock to collapse. Notable locations are South Beach in Miami, the Chesapeake Bay, and Venice, Italy.
Some other tidbits. "Climatologists" claim that there are more hurricanes today, and they are stronger. This is not supported by the facts. Since the recent advent of satellites, we are now aware of "fish storms" in the Atlantic that we never knew about before. Also, the flooding in New Jersey and New York due to Hurricane Ida? That has happened before as well, in the 1950s.
The "Global Warming Cabal" manipulate charts and data constantly. A favorite trick is to cherry-pick a y-axis on a chart to demonstrate their conclusion, yet if you expanded the chart to the left, it would show the opposite effect. Another trick is to cherry-pick temperature stations and limit them to rural locations, which ARE becoming warmer due to the "heat island" effect of more asphalt and concrete around them.
I could go on and on...
You somehow failed to thank Gore for creating the internet so we can participate in discussion like this one.
LOL!
It is my belief that Gore is guilty of super-sized date-fagging. At the time he made his statement to induce panic, the earth was in a part of the climate cycle where temperatures were increasing. The panic was supposed to get funding for major expenditures to "fix" the problem, but they failed to generate enough panic to accomplish their goal before the climate cycle started to head back to cooler temperatures that they were planning to use to celebrate their success at "saving the world". AOC tried again more recently with her 10 or 12-year panic. I wish I could remember the actual time line, but by 2030, iirc, the temperatures are supposed to be undeniably cooler. The climate is tied to the superposition of several long period cycles; the one they were attempting to capitalize on is somewhere between 400 and 500 years long, and thus not recognizable by too many living people.
I remember Gore showed the link between CO2 levels and temperature, but failed to prove causality. I believe in actuality that CO2 levels are generally a lagging indicator so it seem unlikely to be the root cause.
Please note that this is all from research that I did years ago and my memory isn't like it used to be. Do your own research if it is important to you. And, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
That makes two of us, then. I graduated from Climate to Politics in 2016! I find the comparisons between the two scams interesting. Both scares based on models. Both based on things you cannot measure yourself. Both have the media on board reporting just one side of any story and ignoring anything off-narrative. Both scams need a global government to step in and fix things all under UN control (i.e. IPCC and WHO). Both scams make money for the chosen few: e.g. Solyndra and Big Pharma.
You are right about the lag. The 420,000 years of Vostok ice core data shows that the temperature changes first and then, about 800 years later, the CO2 levels change to suit.
Somewhere on my bookshelf is a book talking about core ice samples including many pages of data, but all I can remember is that it is a book that I didn't expect to see data like that presented. I have lots of books so I haven't stumbled across it again although I did make a serious attempt one time Gore said something that pissed me off.
Being keen (!?) I located the Vostok data once. The samples are taken at quite sporadic intervals so I used some cubic spline interpolation to create a regular sampling interval and then compared the two time series in Excel. I got 900 years which, considering the amateur approach, I decided was near enough to a confirmation.
The mechanism that might make that a reality is the air heating the sea water. Most of the earth's available CO2 is in the oceans and warmer water holds less CO2 than cold water. So, as the water warms it gives off CO2. I guessed, without evidence, that the volume of water that needed heating was causing the lag.
I forgot to say that I have noticed that "their" playbook seems to repeat a lot.
When this deception started it was called 'Global Warming'. We were all going to be dead by the year 2000. Cities would be flooded. But then the world temperatures stopped rising.
That is when they decided to rename the crisis as 'Climate Change'. Since the climate is always changing, they wouldn't have to suffer any more embarrassment.
The goal posts move and move and move. It is always said that the 'tipping point' is 10 years away. If we don't drastically change our lifestyle within 10 years, it won't matter what we do. It will be too late.
Then after 10 years go by, they move the tipping point 10 years further forward.
Before Global Warming, it was all about 'renewable resources'. That was the theory that we are running out of fossil fuels. Everybody was thinking that one day would come when all the oil fields would dry up, and then everybody was going to die because farms couldn't run their tractors or transport their food.
Scientific American ran an article that speculated that 50% of the Earth's oil was already used up. And at the ever-accelerating rates of usage as China's economy powered up, we were all doomed because of our insatiable greed.
Well of course, that was bunk. Of course we pump out all the easiest oil first. As those easy oil fields run try, we go after the next-hardest one. The price rises gradually. As the price goes up, eventually people start looking at alternatives.
But now back to Global Warming or Climate Change. If 50% of the world's oil was gone in the 1980's, then there is an upper limit to how much carbon we can put in the air, isn't there? Shouldn't we be running out by now?
Or maybe it is all pure horseshit.
Sorry, fren, but you're wrong about that. You didn't go back far enough. I'm old enough to remember when it began as Global Cooling back in the early 1970s. As a kid, we were warned about the coming ice age. It wasn't until the actual data didn't pan out that it flipped to Global Warming. When people started to catch on that the data for Global Warming wasn't panning out, either, then they flipped to the more neutral Climate Change moniker, which was a smart plan on their part. With the term "Climate Change," you've got all of the bases covered and can claim anything you want at that point.
From there they created "Climate Change Deniers" in which I guess I'm included. Not because I don't believe in climate change, but because I don't believe the lie that man is the biggest contributor to it.
Oh, and according to their figures back then, we should have long-since run out of nuclear fuel, too.
I don't think I was wrong. Global cooling was a thing, but not a very big thing.
But everything you said was correct, just doesn't conflict with what I said.
Dr. Falsely
it's just not climate science, that's just the first one we were aware of. I would bet at this stage most of science and medicine is fake as shit.