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

« Why Gore needs more scrutiny | Main | Judge rules global warming is a religious belief »

Comments

CM

Unfortunately Ian, you didn’t make any mention of the ‘single source’ issue when you posted about it.

As for the Arctic Ice level, it’s ironic that they claim Gore hasn’t checked up on the latest, and then they show they haven’t. That ‘icecap’ link only goes until September 18. Whereas the National Snow and Ice Data Center has a daily analysis.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
As shown on their graph, the ice level has tracked (as of Nov 1) back down so that it’s almost the same as the record-low year of 2007. October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period. This year has steepened the linear trend for October slightly to -5.9 % per decade.

In terms of ‘winter’ versus ‘summer’, I think it’s pretty obvious that he mis-spoke.

As for when the Arctic might experience an ‘ice-free summer’ – as noted, the UK Met Office say that “It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020”. But then the Polar Ocean Physics Group (out of the University of Cambridge) believe data collected by the Catlin Survey team supports the viewpoint that the Arctic will experience an ice free summer within the next 20 years, with most of the decrease in ice taking place within the next 10 years. How can the UK Met Office ‘walk back’ predictions made by other people? The UK Met Office doesn’t ‘own’ the opinions of others.

Gore didn’t link the melting of Arctic sea ice specifically to sea level rise. The worst that could be said is that he talked about it within his discussion of sea level rise, so someone could think he implied it would contribute. But even then, it’s not unrelated. Temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future. As a result, glacier and ice-sheet melting, sea-ice retreat, coastal erosion and sea level rise can be expected to continue.

How is the ‘6-7 meter figure’ still ‘a howler’? He didn’t make it up himself. It’s a reputable figure.
Is there clear evidence that for every 1m of sea level rise, there won’t be 100 million climate refugees?

Sheppard still claims that “Al Gore nevertheless continues to ratchet up the terror” but with the corrections that doesn’t seem to be the case

Shunda barunda

"In terms of ‘winter’ versus ‘summer’, I think it’s pretty obvious that he mis-spoke."

Of coarse, whenever a left winger says something stupid it's a "mis-speak". ha ha! classic.

"How is the ‘6-7 meter figure’ still ‘a howler’? He didn’t make it up himself. It’s a reputable figure."

It is not!! only dishonest alarmist agenda grinders would talk such nonsense.

"Is there clear evidence that for every 1m of sea level rise, there won’t be 100 million climate refugees?"

You have got to be joking! Its ok for Gore to mindlessly pull figures out of thin air simply because he is Al Gore?

AcidComments

"Catlin Survey team supports the viewpoint that the Arctic will experience an ice free summer within the next 20 years, with most of the decrease in ice taking place within the next 10 years. How can the UK Met Office ‘walk back’ predictions made by other people? The UK Met Office doesn’t ‘own’ the opinions of others."

Catlin are a laughable excuse for an Arctic Survey Team!

No real credibility.


CM

>>>>Of coarse, whenever a left winger says something stupid it's a "mis-speak". ha ha! classic.<<<<

Judge each case on its merits. Why would he have said winter instead of summer on purpose? I don't see the benefit?

>>>>It is not!! only dishonest alarmist agenda grinders would talk such nonsense.<<<<

I've provided links to the literature. I haven't seen it disputed. Only the time frame is disputed (which is fair enough).
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

>>>>You have got to be joking! Its ok for Gore to mindlessly pull figures out of thin air simply because he is Al Gore?<<<<

No, people are free to question him. But you've got to have SOME basis other than "that's crap". Otherwise it's meaningless.

>>>>Catlin are a laughable excuse for an Arctic Survey Team!

No real credibility.<<<<

Gosh, I certainly can't dispute that conclusive evidence.

All you guys seem to have is personal opinion? Are you all climate scientists? Or are you just repeating back what you read on right wing blogs?

Shunda barunda

CM, no matter which angle you look at crap, it is still crap.
Your argument against me is because I don't want to find out what type of crap it is.
Stop playing in poose CM, you might catch something.

CM

My argument is that you have no argument, just opinion (which appears not be based on any actual fact or evidence).

Gore could have lied about absolutely everything in his life, but if he says something accurate once, the fact that he lied before doesn't make the accurate statement a lie by association.

Shunda barunda

"the fact that he lied before doesn't make the accurate statement a lie by association"

Do you extend the same principles to you opponents? lets say Ian Wishart?
Please.
Lets be really honest, left wingers mis-speak, everybody else are liars and bigots.

And CM you know the interesting thing about crap? it has an odour to it that stops people (most people anyway) from swallowing it.
It is not hard to pick dual agendas, you just follow your nose.

CM

>>>>Do you extend the same principles to you opponents?<<<<

I certainly try hard to be honest and not a hypocrite.
I don't consider Ian an opponent (he's provided a platform for us to have this discussion, so above everything else he should be congratulated). I would be happy to agree with him when I think he is correct. I certainly wouldn't tell him he's factually wrong solely based on a personal opinion.

>>>>Lets be really honest, left wingers mis-speak, everybody else are liars and bigots.<<<<

G W Bush mis-spoke all the time. He's wasn't a left-winger. But when the intention is to deceive, well, that's not mis-speaking. When Gore said 'Winter' instead of 'Summer', I just can't see any motive to deceive. Can you?

>>>>And CM you know the interesting thing about crap? it has an odour to it that stops people (most people anyway) from swallowing it.<<<<

In my experience most people just believe what they read when it suits their existing opinion (whether it is crap or not). They seldomly actually take the time to do their own objective research ('follow their nose') as to whether something is crap or not.
Generally people who just post/speak in generalities and adhere to lazy conspiracy theories are more likely to be the ones who don't bother checking for themselves.

CM

Forgot to add at the end: And these people are the target market for online denialist distortion/cherry-picking/misrepresentation.
It's a complex area. Most people accept what they read/hear. And being against what 'the man' is telling you is worn as a badge of honour. People pride themselves on being skeptical because they think it makes them come across as more intelligent. Unfortunately, when it comes to a complex sucbject like climate change, most people don't know enough to be considered 'skeptics' and are in fact just uninformed deniers along for the ride.

Shunda barunda

CM, I used to believe in AGW before I did some research, it was only then that I found all the BS and convenient dual agendas, and oh how convenient!!
I am an environmentalist, I don't like dirty dairy, and I love trees.
One thing I don't like with a passion is people politicising the environment for their own selfish agendas.

AcidComments

"No real credibility.<<<<

Gosh, I certainly can't dispute that conclusive evidence.

All you guys seem to have is personal opinion? Are you all climate scientists? Or are you just repeating back what you read on right wing blogs?"

Because some of it's already been posted about on this blog anyway. Some of us can't really be bothered having to repeat ourselves!

CM

>>>>Because some of it's already been posted about on this blog anyway. Some of us can't really be bothered having to repeat ourselves!<<<<

True, there's really no need to keep repeating vague and unsupported conspiracy theory nonsense.

>>>>CM, I used to believe in AGW before I did some research, it was only then that I found all the BS and convenient dual agendas, and oh how convenient!!<<<<

Why did you "believe" in something before you did research?
Why not ignore the politics and just look at the science? Physically processes don't change or respond to politics. That's the beauty of it.

>>>>One thing I don't like with a passion is people politicising the environment for their own selfish agendas.<<<<

Again, ignore the side-show then and concentrate on the science.

AcidComments

"True, there's really no need to keep repeating vague and unsupported conspiracy theory nonsense."

CM.

It's you who're spouting nonsense.

I'd believe the German/Canadian science Actic Sea Ice measurements of 'twice as thick than expected' over Catlin's anyday!

Catlin is an Insurance Company making money out of Climate Change Insurance for frick sake anyway.


CM

>>>>I'd believe the German/Canadian science Actic Sea Ice measurements of 'twice as thick than expected' over Catlin's anyday!

Catlin is an Insurance Company making money out of Climate Change Insurance for frick sake anyway.<<<<

Has the Catlin research shown to be flawed?

More generally, the insurance industry is an interesting player in climate change, because it is inherently long-term focused. Now that the industry is reluctantly starting to address climate change, they are starting to model the risk of future climate change into their premiums, and thus handing on costs on to property developers, govts, etc - basically anyone who purchases insurance. For instance, climate change is a genuine risk to future GDP growth, so insurers are going to charge more for bond insurance, whether it’s corporate or government bonds. That increased long term risk makes it more expensive for governments and corporations to issue long-term bonds to raise short term capital. Unfortunately, this market mechanism isn’t working efficiently yet, because not enough markets participants are fully informed about the genuine financial risks of climate change. This is starting to change, however, as the insurance industry has now realised it needs to invest more money in climate research. After all, it’s the insurance industry’s business to try and understand future risks.

E.g. uncertainty regarding hurricanes is definitely significant not only in how government formulate policies but in how insurance companies formulate policies. They would be stupid to ignore the facts.

CM

Following on....

Climate change could (and probably should) be looked at as a risk-management problem. It’s not a question of whether global warming is true or false, or certain or uncertain, or whether there is a consensus or not. What matters is trying to understand the nature of the risk. There is a risk of global warming. That is undeniable. Just like there is a risk your house will burn down. That doesn’t mean your house burning down is a “fact”, just that the risk of it doing so is real. So when you buy insurance you need to assess that risk. Well, we need to intelligently assess the risk of global warming. We aren’t doing that because the public discourse (although not so much the serious scientific discourse) is full of misinformation. While the media and some figures (Gore) may sometimes be guilty of fear-mongering, I believe that the skeptics do a far worse job of muddying the waters with false information that is blatently aimed at misleading people. This is not true of all skeptics, but many. Consequently, many individuals, business and governments still underestimate the risk of global warming. I believe if we had a more intelligent conversation about the risks/benefits we’d all be conserving more energy and investing in cleaner technology AND making more money and we wouldn’t even need governments to make us, because we’d all the see the common sense of it.

Thomas Everth

Well said CM!

Shunda barunda

"Again, ignore the side-show then and concentrate on the science."

Don't you get it CM? AGW is the side show!!!
Copenhagen will do nothing to address the energy crisis, nothing to promote true sustainability, all it will do is create another market for the same bloody people that recently stuffed up the world economy!.
But most on the left don't care about that do they, ever wondered why?

Ian Wishart

CM the Catlin research was indeed flawed. Its comparisons were meaningless as it had no reference points to measure against, and their equipment broke, and data collection became highly sporadic, then they had to be rescued because it was too cold.

Thomas Everth

Shunda: "...all it will do is create another market for the same bloody people that recently stuffed up the world economy!"

So who do you imply stuffed up the world economy in relation to Copenhagen and GW? You are loosing us here!

What if the US (and others) had invested heavily in alternative energy and related technologies 20 years ago, where do you think we would be now? $150/barrel oil in 2008 or perhaps not?

CM

Re; Catlin, oh yes, of course, I had forgotten that was the one - debacle! Hope they were insured ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.