My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« On yer bike, mate | Main | Is NOAA in denial too? »

Comments

RRM

Gore said SIX or SEVEN metres.

Not 67 metres.

Don't let a mere factor of ten get in the way of your loathing of the left ;-)

"INVESTIGATE" magazine fail.

robk

RRM

Sounds plausible - have you a reference?

Ian Wishart

Ahem. I did say "appears" because not even I believed Gore really expected a 67 metre sea level rise...however FWIW the original version of the Maktoob story did indeed say that, and we all had fun with it.

Can't see Arctic ice disappearing in the long dark winters ever, however, and certainly not inside ten years.

CM

>>>>Al Gores scientific 'advisor' Hansen did make a prediction 20 years ago.<<<<

This implies that Gore relies on no other science that that promulgated by Hansen.

>>>>"Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress"<<<<

Who wants to be the one to dig up Joseph Fourier (who was of the understanding that he discovered it in 1824) to let him know? Bags not.

As for the anecdote, I'm not sure what the point is. That he was wrong then, therefore he's always wrong, therefore Gore is always wrong, and therefore that AGW theory is wrong? Is that it?

Or do you think perhaps there is a remote chance that our collective understanding might be a tiny little bit better than it was 12 or 13 years ago? And that not every scientist in the world is going to get every prediction right?

Gosh, Acid certainly won't be happy at all the 'extreme event' nonsense in that interview.

CM

>>>>RRM

Sounds plausible - have you a reference?<<<<

Try reading the comments before yours.

>>>>Ahem. I did say "appears" because not even I believed Gore really expected a 67 metre sea level rise...however FWIW the original version of the Maktoob story did indeed say that, and we all had fun with it.<<<<

And now the rest of us has can rightly have fun with you and your Gore alarmism.
But actually how did you fun at Gore's expense if you didn't really believe he said that? That doesn't add up.

Nice try with the 'appears' qualifier. Unfortunately you then skidded off the high road with your own description that this "nails Gore's tailfeathers to the barn wall".

Also, the supposed need for others to spring to Gore's defence contradicts any revisionism such as not believing Gore might have said 67 metres.

But that's right, I forgot, blogs don't have journalistic standards - which is why people can get away with writing any old crap they like.

robk

CM
">>>>RRM

Sounds plausible - have you a reference?<<<<

Try reading the comments before yours."

Your reference mentions 6 to 7 metres, but I was asking for a reference that GORE actually said 6 to 7 metres, at the Dubai conference

You're right, though, even if Gore is an idiot that would not change the science per se.

Your next link talks about a 70 metre rise should the Greenland and Antarctic ice completely melt. Not too dissimilar an amount to the 67 metres mentioned earlier. Perhaps this caused some confusion in Gore's mind?

Mack

Aww com'on CM everybody knows big Al is a fat-assed charismatic crank with a D in science.
He's an embarrasment to your AGW cause. The credibility of the Copenhagen blabfest will plummet to zero if your ordained one makes his grand appearance as he did in Bali.
But what's the betting big Al's ego gets the better of him.
Ahahahahahahaha.

CM

robk - possibly, but I think it's more likely that the correction is more accurate (they taped the talk). Again though, if we only have one source, we can't be sure. I certainly wouldn't be trumpeting anything reported by a single unheard-of source. You just end up looking silly.

>>>>Aww com'on CM everybody knows big Al is a fat-assed charismatic crank with a D in science.<<<<

Amazing how he so often gets it all so right then.

>>>>He's an embarrasment to your AGW cause.<<<<

Wow, I can't imagine how you feel about all the prominent deniers then, considering how often it's pointed out how intellectually bankrupt and wrong (and often contradictory) they are.

Actually, the truth is I don't care about Al Gore in the slightest. I care far far more about accuracy.

>>>>The credibility of the Copenhagen blabfest will plummet to zero if your ordained one makes his grand appearance as he did in Bali.<<<<

Hang on, aren't his tailfeathers nailed to the barn wall?

I strongly suspect the people who will find it has zero credibility will do so regardless or who attends or what happens.

Anyway, we'll now see how honest the deniers are by whether alert their readers to the correction in their main piece, or whether they're happy to mislead on the basis that the readers won't go back and recheck the source.

>>>>Ahahahahahahaha.<<<<

Indeed.

Andrew W

Ian, once again you've made a fool of yourself by leaping on a story without checking its accuracy, or questioning your own interpretation of it. An apology and correction? I'm not holding my breath.
Most people would be hugely embarrassed at making a cock-up on this scale, not you though.
Your credibility is now completely gone.

peter

Ian, you say:

' Ahem. I did say "appears" because not even I believed Gore really expected a 67 metre sea level rise ... however FWIW the original version of the Maktoob story did indeed say that, and we all had fun with it. '

Great hindsight here, but I'm convinced that you were quite happy to use this source as a means of beating up Al Gore, climate change alarmists and any one left of political centre - all in one go.

You do show some potential as a journalist, but as Andrew W points out, credibility is everything.

CM

Let's wait for the correction in the main piece. Surely it's bound to appear any minute.........wait for it......wait for it.....

;-)

i do believe

"I did say "appears" because not even I believed Gore really expected a 67 metre sea level rise."

Quick - someone scan Ian's other posts for where he says "appears" so we can see what else 'not even he' would believe.

Ian - I would say that your readers would appreciate you telling them beforehand that you do not believe in what you appear to believe in.

AcidComments

"Gosh, Acid certainly won't be happy at all the 'extreme event' nonsense in that interview."

Even 6 to 7 Metre Sea level rises are rubbish anyway. Not likely to happen in the next 10yrs or by 2100!

CM

"Even 6 to 7 Metre Sea level rises are rubbish anyway. Not likely to happen in the next 10yrs or by 2100!"

Yeah but that's not what Gore said was it.
According to Maktoob, if they can even be trusted, he if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres. But he didn't say those massive ice sheets would melt in 10 years of by 2100.

Presumably you don't want to check because it might not support your existing opinion.

Andrew W

As people often point out to Ian, what Gore says, and what Ian wants to pretend that he says, are two different things.

Ian Wishart

Of course I was happy to use the Maktoob story to have some fun at Gore’s expense. I’ve already said this. His Inconvenient Truth was littered with errors, many of which I’ve dealt with in Air Con and Air Con the video, and more of which were dealt with by a British judge.

Unlike Gore, I make myself fully available for peer review. When was the last time Gore came down into the bear pits and debated climate change with any skeptic?

Yeah, I can’t think of one either.

And for all of you poor outraged Al Pollo Loco followers, I don’t recall you demanding that Hot Topic and its commenters apologise for far more deliberate and damaging slights on yours truly.

Greenland would take at least a thousand years to melt enough to raise sea levels 6-7 metres. Not ten years. Not a hundred years.

Antarctica is still 40 degrees C below zero and can’t really be honestly accused of “melting”.

Andrew W

As I've pointed out to you Ian, Gore has never claimed Greenland would melt in 10 years, or a hundred years.

"And for all of you poor outraged Al Pollo Loco followers, I don’t recall you demanding that Hot Topic and its commenters apologise for far more deliberate and damaging slights on yours truly."

Well Ian, that would be silly given your own propensity to launch deliberate attacks on us "Al Pollo Loco followers".

Shunda barunda

The fact that any of you a defending such a shameless liar as Gore is proof enough of the lack of integrity among AGW believers.
Gore spoke about the 6-7 metre rise and melting ice sheets to play upon the ignorance of at least some of his audience.
It is blatant fear mongering and is a dishonest manipulative attempt to add credibility to his fruit loopery.
Ian's mistake is an insignificant blip on the radar compared to this shameless crook.

willaspish

Sold many books this month, Ian?

John Boy

"I strongly suspect the people who will find it has zero credibility will do so regardless or who attends or what happens."

Yep - until the politicians and strident professional protestors stay away and let the science be debated by real scientists under the gaze of the public I will be suspicious. Only a fool trusts a politician. Ian, right or wrong, is a necessary balance in this shambles because there's no real debate in the MSM.

The comments to this entry are closed.