25 Inconvenient Truths For Al Gore
By Iain Murray
With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al
Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank,
this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely
pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation,
exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the
former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his
argument. Here are just 25 of them.
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global
temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is
founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere
contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p.
66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2
shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains
suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years
ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global
warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The
authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a
new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based
on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note
that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies
that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice
recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at
the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are
likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the
same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy
of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53
probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph
that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has
been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.”
That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists
said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…
the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic
‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on
to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a
or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation,
i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a
redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing
temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of
anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005
wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have
been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused
by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global
warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September
2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly
anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing
depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This
situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days)
during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the
CLICK FOR FULL REPORT:>>
The Global Warming Hoax
Even Roger Revelle, one of the fathers of Global Warming
theory and the man much touted by Al Gore in his
mockumentary, came to, well, not disavow his ...
Al Gore - FOR a One World Church and UN Dictatorship MORE:>>
Gore, in Palo Alto, spreads thanks for Nobel Peace Prize win
Nuevo Mundo, CA - 3 hours ago
By Mary Anne Ostrom and Mark Gomez Former US Vice-president
Al Gore, center addresses to media during a press conference
on Friday morning in Palo Alto ...
Al Gore Interview With Dianne Sawyer
10 min - May 22, 2007 - (100 ratings)
Iraq, and how the media frames these debates and the problems
with our democracy and the news media today....Al Gore Diane
Sawyer Good Morning America
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings — By Tom Harris, Fri Oct 12
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The
Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006 ...
By Tom Harris
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings
Fri Oct 12, 2007 19:38
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe "The
Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun
2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think
about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook
University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising
assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are
pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies
The Gods must be laughing
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny
cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of
scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental,
non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis
that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant
global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why?
Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only
a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of
climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects
to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers,
they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global
climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology
professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects
of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change
cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the
causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on
designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These
models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.
"Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in
fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the
public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand
what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global
climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus,
despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor
Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest
period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On
the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the
past century's modest warming?"