Comedian Michael Loftus, host of the new TV show "The Flipside" goes on an extended rant about how people who supposedly believe in the upcoming end of the world brought on by global warming primarily seem interested in just making money for themselves.
By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.
The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.
The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.
They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.
Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University and University Coillege, London, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.
‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore (above) was apocalyptic. He said that the North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff and could be gone in seven years
Yet for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space.
Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’
Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty.
The ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now
Mr Gore – whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’
Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.
Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’
For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050.
Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’.
However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them.
Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’
Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.
‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.
However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.
Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’
Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.
Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.
Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.
‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’
This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore’s, was too pessimistic.
‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.
GOOD NEWS FOR POLAR BEARS...
The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears.
If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily. Yet even when the ice reached a low point in 2012, there was no scientific evidence that bear numbers were declining, with their estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 thought to be higher than in the 1970s, when hunting was first banned.
In many Arctic regions, say scientists, they are in robust health and breeding successfully.
Computer model predictions of decline caused by ice melt have also failed to come true. In 2004, researchers claimed Hudson Bay bear numbers would fall from 900 to fewer than 700 by 2011. In fact, they have risen to over 1,000.
However, the main international bear science body, the Polar Bear Specialist Group, admits it has no reliable data from almost half of the Arctic, so cannot say whether numbers are falling or rising.
A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.
In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.
However, instead of completely melting away, the polar icecap is at now at its highest level for this time of year since 2006.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/15/2007-gore-says-arctic-ice-could-disappear-2013-earth-gains-record-amount-sea-ice-2013#ixzz2f5NYQzJW
Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is back in town with his new, improved snake oil, guaranteed to grow hair, improve digestion, promote regularity and kill roaches, rats and bedbugs. Al and his wagon rumbled into town on the eve of “a major forthcoming report” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a panel of scientists affiliated with the United Nations. Their report is expected to buck up the spirits of the tycoons of the snake-oil industry.
A snake-oil salesman’s lot, like a policeman’s, is not a happy one. There’s always a skeptic or two (or three) standing at the back of the wagon, eager to scoff and jeer. The global-warming scam would have been right up Gilbert and Sullivan’s street. Would Al and the U.N. deceive us? No! Never! What! Never? Weeeell, hardly ever.
The New York Times, a faithful shill for Al’s snake-oil elixir, following the wagon from town to town, got an advance copy of the U.N. report and gives out with the “good” news: It’s a “near certainty” that humans are responsible for the rising temperatures of recent decades, and warns that by the end of the century all the little people — small children, midgets and others whose growth was stunted by drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes at an early age — will be up to their belly buttons in salt water. The seas will rise by more than three feet.
The inconvenient truth Al and the junk scientists have to deal with is that temperatures aren’t rising, but falling. In fact, since the early 1990s we’ve had global cooling. It got so embarrassing Al and the junk scientists started calling it “climate change.” Some days it rains, some days it doesn’t and some days it’s a little of both. That’s real change. The U.N. panel concedes that global warming has in fact given way to global cooling, but attributes this to “short-term factors.” The minions of the compliant media, ever eager to blow hard about the coming end of the world, when women and minorities will suffer most, will rattle and twitter about the U.N. climate report with their usual tingle and flutter.
President Obama tried the other day to elbow Al aside to lead with his assertion that hurricanes are getting worse and that only he has the power to put them in their place. Hurricanes are actually getting not worse, but fewer. Only three major hurricanes have made landfall so far in Mr. Obama’s presidency. Grover Cleveland, who was president between 1885 and 1889, entertained 26 major hurricanes during his presidency, and that was before global warning was invented.
We were scheduled to see an enormous melting of polar ice by now, but even the ice won’t co-operate. The U.S. Navy forecasts twice as much mid-September ice this year as it measured in 2012.
The only way to deal with the inconvenient truth is to bellow and bawl the convenient whopper louder than ever. In an interview this week with a blogger for The Washington Post, Ezra Klein greeted Al with a shower of sanitized softballs, and Al knocked some of them halfway back to the pitcher’s mound. Al is exhausted dealing with the skeptics, whom he calls “denialists,” as in denying the Holocaust. The denialists, he says, are “like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace.”
Al, who is a decent sort who tried to be a good ol’ boy when he went back home to visit the family tobacco farm, says the denialists remind him of racists, warmongers, homophobes and other congenital undesirables, but he thinks it won’t be long until they’re permanently silenced. “We’re winning the conversation,” he says.
On the contrary, what frustrates Al and the snake-oil industry is that the skeptics can no longer be shut out of the conversation. “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority,” Kenneth P. Green, a former member of the U.N. panel, predicted three years ago. Another former panelist, Dr. Kimimori Itoh, a Japanese physical chemist, calls the phenomenon “the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
That’s too bad, because when science and scientists one day discover a genuine crisis, nobody will listen. We’re up to our ears already in snake oil.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/23/pruden-up-to-our-ears-in-snake-oil/#ixzz2cpLUjmMg
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Foundation WatchAl Gore’s Carbon CrusadeThe Money and Connections Behind It
By Deborah Corey Barnes | Aug 2007
Former Vice President Al Gore’s crusade against carbon dioxide emissions could make him millions of dollars. With help from friends at Goldman Sachs, Gore has established a network of organizations to promote the “climate crisis”—and keep himself in the spotlight. Gore’s crusade already has had an enormous impact on corporate decision-making and government policies. But how will it affect his personal and political fortunes?......CLARIFICATION: The article indicated that Henry (Hank) Paulson, the Goldman Sachs CEO who later became U.S. Treasury Secretary, was “co-founder” of Generation Investment Management (GIM). Paulson played a role in the creation of GIM, but the firm does not identify him as a co-founder.
View the full version in PDF Format
By Ian Wilhelm
The Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank, is questioning the motives behind former Vice President Al Gore’s advocacy campaign to garner public support to stop climate change.
The three-year, $300-million campaign, which started this week, will be run by the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization in Menlo Park, Calif. Mr. Gore is estimated to have contributed $2.7-million to the effort.
But the center, in Washington, suggests that the former vice president could benefit financially from the campaign as chairman of Generation Investment Management, a private company in London that invests in environmentally friendly businesses.
On the center’s blog, Matthew Vadum, editor of the think tank’s publications, writes that the investment company has “considerable influence” over carbon-credit trading groups and that if the new advocacy campaign succeeds in convincing Americans to support carbon-emissions trading, “Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in.”
However, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Generation Investment Management, called the suggestions a “nonsense story.”
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he writes that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company’s board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading.
“To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” he writes.
What do you think?
"On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-stake-advancing-global-warming-hysteria#ixzz1EcJGtIL8
By Sally Peck 12:01AM BST 11 Oct 2007
Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.
In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".
But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.
His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.
The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."
But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film".
The nine alleged errors in the film
ASPEN — He may have been preaching to the choir, but former Vice President Al Gore stirred an Aspen audience Friday with a passionate speech about the effects of global warming, at one point pounding his fist on the podium and declaring it “a moral issue.”
Gore, 62, delivered a 50-minute keynote address for a symposium on “Forests at Risk: Climate Change and the Future of the American West.” The event, hosted by the local nonprofit For the Forest, was held in the Doerr-Hosier Center at The Aspen Institute.
Gore told the standing-room-only audience that his remarks on global warming, and the presentations throughout the half-day symposium, should not be taken as merely “interesting” or “an intellectual exercise.”
“It is a call to action,” he said, “if you love these forests, if you think for a moment about the obligation we have to those who come after [us].
“This is a forest issue. It's a political issue. It's an economic issue. It's a national security issue. It's a jobs issue. But at bottom, it is a moral issue,” he said to widespread applause. “And we have to be willing to stand up and do the right thing.”
Gore spent much of the first half of his speech discussing the loss of millions of acres of forests in Colorado and elsewhere in the Rockies, connecting that decline to various factors such as pine-beetle infestations and wildfires.
Global warming has helped to accelerate the losses, he said. Through a slide show, he displayed charts created through scientific data that show the correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in wildfires.
Warmer temperatures have promoted the beetle problem in many ways, Gore said. Because of higher winter temperatures, a large percentage of the beetles are surviving, returning during warm months to wreak havoc on trees. Also, the trees aren't as strong as they used to be, having been weakened by years of drought conditions, making them easy targets for the beetles.
Gore's slideshow contained Google Earth software maps that clearly showed the rapid decline of Colorado's forest lands over the last decade. He then returned to a more general discussion of global warming. His work to promote efforts to recognize global warming and combat it by reducing the world's carbon footprint led to a Nobel Prize in 2007, an honor he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2006, he was the subject of an Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was based on his book of the same name.
According to Gore, 90 million tons of pollution that contribute to global warming are sent into the Earth's atmosphere every day. The time has come for not just Americans, but the world at large, to make a conscious decision to tackle the problem, he said.
Gore acknowledged that there are skeptics and cynics, but said an overwhelming consensus of the world's top scientific organizations now recognize the causes and effects of global warming. It should no longer be a partisan issue, he said.
Gore said he agrees with U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., on the point that “global warming shouldn't be a conservative or a liberal issue to the extent it is. It shouldn't be a Republican-Democratic issue, but one thing it is for sure — it is an issue for anyone who loves the forest.”
During a question-and-answer session, the former vice president spoke about the intense opposition to the very idea of global warming.
He said many global corporations base their profit margins on the ability to pollute. They have banded together and spent billions of dollars in the media and in political campaigns, even hiring “four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”
“And they said, if the public becomes convinced that this is what the scientists say it is, then it's 'game over' for us,” Gore said.
Their objective, he said, was to transform global warming into a theory rather than a fact. And so the opponents of the effort to recognize climate change embarked upon a “dedicated, cynical, lavishly funded strategy,” utilizing conservative talk radio, commentator Rush Limbaugh and his many imitators, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Fox News and other right-wing outlets.
It didn't help, Gore said, that the scientific community committed some “self-inflicted wounds.” That was a reference to mistakes and misstatements in an IPCC report four years ago that led to a large amount of political debate and media attention.
“I think the mistakes were blown way way out of proportion,” Gore said. One reason for the mistakes, he said, was that a defensive culture developed among some scientists because they were “harassed on a regular basis” by opponents of the concept of global warming.
“But the general consensus [recognizing global warming] is so strong, and so firm, and so widely shared now, that it is clearly the basis for action that the rest of us ought to take,” Gore said.
He was asked about the popular confusion surrounding the topic. For instance, when winter weather turns extremely cold, many people question the concept of global warming.
“With global warming, since the manifestations are distributed globally, it masquerades as an illusion,” Gore said. “It could be a cold winter in one geography while the world as a whole is continuing to get warmer. There can be more extremes of both heat and cold. There can be more volatility in weather patterns.”
Gore quoted comedian and political commentator Bill Maher, who recently said on his HBO program that “believing that winter disproves global warming is like looking outside and concluding that the sun has gone away and disappeared because it's night.”
Gore said human nature tends to discount the notion of global warming because “the length of time between causes and consequences is somewhat longer than we're comfortable dealing with, in the normal way we think about things.”
But, he added, it's also part of our human nature “to use abstract reasoning, and form values-based goals, and stick to them for a long period of time. We have demonstrated that in the history of humankind on many occasions.”
Gore, a Democratic U.S. representative and senator from Tennessee in the 1980s and early 1990s, served as vice president to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. In the controversial 2000 presidential election that ended up being settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, he was defeated by Republican George W. Bush, even though Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes.
The Aspen Times
Aspen CO Colorado
The Climate Depot
Not Tricks Zone
Is it Getting Warmer?
The Alliance for Climate Protection