Gore warns ‘global warming’ will make parts of Earth ‘no longer be fit for human habitation’
Posted: 4:33 p.m. Thursday, February 16, 2017
A climate change meeting in Atlanta on Thursday had all the ingredients of a political spectacle.
With Donald Trump, a noted skeptic of climate change science winning the the White House, a nervous federal agency scrapped plans to host the event. Enter, Al Gore. The former Democratic presidential candidate helped revive the conference and took to the podium Thursday to talk about his signature issue.
But it was science – not politics – that carried the day.
NYT Oped by Warmist: A Scientists’ March on DC ‘is a terrible idea’ – Will ‘reinforce narrative that scientists are an interest group & politicize their data’
Climate Depot comment: “This warmist professor is spot on with many of his observations about the proposed DC climate march. Kudos to New York Times for publishing it. Michael Mann must be having fits over this.”
By Robert S. Young, a professor of coastal geology and the director of the program for the study of developed shorelines at Western Carolina University.
Excepts:
A March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.
There is no question that the proposed March for Science will make my job more difficult and increase polarization.
A march by scientists, while well intentioned, will serve only to trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about, turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars and further drive the wedge between scientists and a certain segment of the American electorate.
…
Al Gore, bless his heart (as we say in the South), was well intentioned when he made “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. But he did us no favors. So many of the conservative Southerners whom I speak to about climate change see it as a partisan issue largely because of that high-profile salvo fired by the former vice president.
Scientists marching in opposition to a newly elected Republican president will only cement the divide. The solution here is not mass spectacle, but an increased effort to communicate directly with those who do not understand the degree to which the changing climate is already affecting their lives. We need storytellers, not marchers.…
AL GORE REWRITES HISTORY TO PROMOTE SEQUEL
Gore’s promotion of “global warming” also has drawn the criticism of a prominent scientist:
According to a report at Climate Depot, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, former chairman of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he was “appalled” at Gore’s work, citing either Gore’s lack of understanding or knowing misrepresentation.
“It was irresponsible of Al Gore,” he said.
That someone should want to be in the middle of the “global warming” argument is fully justified, when one considers the world community is estimated to be looking at spending of $100 trillion before the end of the century on reducing the world’s temperature.
That’s enough to make 100 million people millionaires.
And that spending will generate a temperature reduction of a “grand total of three tenths of one degree,” according to Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, reports Climate Depot.
Lomborg states: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years.”
He explained the calculation is based on the U.N.’s own climate prediction model.
The total is bigger than the world’s gross domestic product.
He warned that if the U.S. “delivers for the whole century on … President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
“But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free – quite the contrary,” Lomborg said. “The cost of the U.N. Paris climate pact is like to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”
That’s compared to the U.S. annual budget of under $4 trillion.
Here’s a video with Lomborg’s full analysis and commentary:
Climate Change publisher Marc Morano reported the evaluation was provided as part of Lomborg’s criticism of the recent Paris Climate Agreement, which was much ballyhooed by the Obama administration as a major step forward.…
Al Gore Caught Riding In An SUV At Sundance Film Festival
…Privatization! Gore To Host ‘Climate Change Summit’ After CDC Cancels It
Now this is what I like to see. Privatization! If you really care about an issue, such as global change climate warming, you should have the right to spend as much of your own money as you want on it. Just stop robbing the rest of us at gunpoint.
Brooke Seipel, The Hill:
Climate activist and former vice president Al Gore is teaming up with the American Public Health Association and other organizations to hold a summit on climate change and health that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention canceled earlier this week.
The CDC quietly called off the summit after President Trump’s inauguration, telling reporters it was “exploring options to reschedule the meeting.” The scientific community has accused CDC officials of canceling the event out of fear of the Trump administration…
“They tried to cancel this conference but it is going forward anyway,” Gore said in a statement on the event.…
Sundance filmgoers warn of ‘global warming’ impacts: ‘It affects our ability to reproduce’ – Warn ‘criminal’ deniers: ‘We are coming for you’
PARK CITY — In light of the premiere of Al Gore’s new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel,” CFACT’s Climate Depot sent an undercover agent into Park City Utah to ask the attendees of the snowy 2017 Sundance Film Festival what their biggest fears were about global warming. Their answers, just like their so-called “science,” are pretty hard to believe!
#
Related Links:
Watch: Interviews at Sundance 2017 – Warmists Review Gore’s Climate Sequel – Filmgoer leaving Gore’s sequel: ‘I liked that they used an emotional argument on it. Instead of heavy in statistics.’
Warmist review of Gore’s Sequel: ‘Convoluted & diluted’ – Film plays ‘like a social media booster for Mr. Gore’ ‘The problem with this film however, is that it often pats one side on the back while at the same time vilifying the other.’
Gore Rewrites ‘Inconvenient’ Claim about NYC Flooding in ‘Sequel’ – But his original prediction was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any “storm surge” at all. It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.
Skeptic reviews sequel: ‘Gore abandons science in favor of tired global warming talking points…It’s shameless’ – Climate Depot has sent an undercover agent to Robert Redford’s snow filled Sundance Film Festival in Utah this week. See: Inconvenient Question: Gore asked about failed ’10-year tipping’ point – Refuses to answer, enters SUV in snow
Climate Depot’s undercover agent caught up with Gore on Saturday January 21 at Sundance film festival in the late afternoon while Gore was exiting a private party at the Zoom restaurant in Park City Utah. Gore was trudging through the snow to his oversized Chevy Suburban SUV, when the undercover agent asked an inconvenient question of Gore.
Question: “Hey Al, I just saw [your sequel] ‘Inconvenient’.”
Gore: “Oh great, thank you!”
Question: “My friends make fun of me about the 10-year tipping point, what do I tell them?”
Gore: “Well, we gotta keep working.” Gore then gives a momentary stare and then ignores the question and enters his “Executive Car Service” Chevy Suburban and departs on the snowy street.
Watch: Interviews at Sundance 2017 – Warmists Review Gore’s Climate Sequel
…
Warmist review of Gore’s Sequel: ‘Convoluted & diluted’ – Film plays ‘like a social media booster for Mr. Gore’
One of the toughest things about a film like this, is figuring out who its audience actually is. Most people have already decided where they stand on the issue of Global Warming. Change needs to come from both ends of the spectrum, whether that’s left and right, or east and west. The problem with this film however, is that it often pats one side on the back while at the same time vilifying the other. India, one of the film’s few antagonists, is portrayed like a soulless coal-burning entity whose views are void and who only can progress into the 21st century with a helping hand from its western counterpart (think old lady crossing the street).
…
The problem is that any important ideas or commentary on this global issue were never really allowed to flourish. Instead, the important issues of Global Warming and climate change were trapped in a shadow cast by Al Gore himself. The film plays less like a social commentary, and more like a social media booster for Mr. Gore and gives the impression that the film may have better relayed its message without the man who helped prop the issue up into the limelight in the first place. The irony is apparent, is it not?
…
For those unfamiliar with American politics, we’re talking the reddest of the red. Unfortunately, even these guys were still portrayed as “simple folk” that may not know much about science, but at least know enough to start using renewable energy. It’s almost as if the film is saying “Look! If these podunks can do it, why can’t you?”. Potential greatness again undermined by the need for inserting political commentary.
In the end, An Inconvenient Sequel may only play well to those who are either fans of the original film, or those that are just now coming into the conversation about Global Warming. There aren’t any new ideas presented here, and the ideas that are there, are constantly being convoluted and diluted. It’s obvious that intentions were good, and the issue is indeed important, but the film lacks execution and may not have quite the changing impact as the first one did. …
Gore Rewrites ‘Inconvenient’ Claim about NYC Flooding in ‘Sequel’
By Julia A. Seymour
Critics gave former Vice President Al Gore grief for predicting in An Inconvenient Truth that major cities including lower Manhattan would be underwater if severe ice melt occurred.
Now Gore is rewriting history to claim his prediction came true in promotion footage of his upcoming film, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which debuted at Sundance on Jan. 19.
In this case, context is the difference between honesty and self-interested revisionism.
In his 2006 film, Gore warned, “If Greenland broke up and melted or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida [animation shown with much of the state underwater].”
Immediately, after showing Florida, Gore showed animations of drowning cities and countries: San Francisco, The Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta and then Manhattan.
“But this is what would happen to Manhattan, they can measure this precisely,” Gore warned as he showed his audience much of the city underwater, including the area where the memorial would be built.
Now, he’s twisted his original words to make it appear his prediction about Manhattan came true.
“Ten years ago when the movie An Inconvenient Truth came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 9/11 memorial site, which was then under construction. And people said, ‘That’s ridiculous. What a terrible exaggeration,” Gore claimed in a newly released clip from An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. [Emphasis added]
In that clip, Gore then shows “Superstorm Sandy” footage of water flooding lower Manhattan, including the memorial site and a quote from Gov. Andrew Cuomo blaming climate change, to prove true Gore’s claim from 11 years ago.
But his original prediction was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any “storm surge” at all. It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.
The latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt due to global warming.
What’s worse than Gore’s rewrite of history is that online media not only aren’t exposing it, they’re perpetuating the distortion. EcoWatch reported on Jan. 23, “Al Gore’s Prediction Came True.” SlashFilm.com …
Skeptic reviews sequel: ‘Gore abandons science in favor of tired global warming talking points…It’s shameless’
An Inconvenient Sequel to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth premiered Thursday night at Sundance.
I joined the crowd at the film festival’s Eccles theater where my reaction ranged from bored, to emotional, to appalled that I let this film manipulate my emotions even for a moment.
The film is not aimed at thinking people. If there’s a legitimate case to be made for global warming, this is not it. It doesn’t even try. Instead Gore abandons science in favor of tired global warming talking points that have long been debunked. It’s shameless.
It’s also all about Gore, whom the film portrays as someone 
anyone can walk up to and chat with in depth. He tries to come off as an average person with a heroic passion. Sadly for Gore, whenever his climate advocacy gets momentum he hits barriers: A satellite he didn’t get to launch, the Bush administration, the terrorist attacks at Paris’s Bataclan, India abandoning renewables for coal, and now Trump. If you’re not careful you actually feel sorry for him.
The film did a good job of taking the famously stiff Gore and (when he’s not showing PowerPoint slides) presenting him as likable, funny and tireless. Not, however, humble. Gore is the hero of his own film, which works hard to chalk up any gains the warming campaign has made to Gore himself. We see Gore after the UN adopted its Paris climate agreement walking down a hall alone in a way that implies that he has just accomplished the great feat of his life. He loosens his tie as if to say, “I did it and now I’m going home.”
In scenes where Gore’s eyes start to water, you could hear and see sniffling and tears in the audience. A man of at least 6 foot 3 sitting in front of me began to cry while his lady partner rubbed his back. Of course (excepting me and few others) this was an audience of true believers. It remains to be seen whether this film can gain a mainstream audience and whether they will be similarly affected.
In scenes where Gore whips outs his iPhone and starts talking to various people in an attempt to coax India away from from coal, you can clearly see that his phone’s screen is black. I’ve had an iPhone for six years and my phone’s face