Friday, September 15, 2006

Al Gore's Movie: Exposed

THIS is the most brilliant critique of Al Gore's Enviro-disaster movie I have read. It's by Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Australia. Click HERE to read it. I am not someone who doesn't believe global warming is happening, but the fact is that climate change is a permanent feature of the planet. The trick is to sort out what is caused by us and what isn't. Gore's alarmist treatise is clearly meant to launch a new power bid in some form or other. All I can say is, thank God he never became US President.

More analysis for from the CEI HERE and HERE.

42 comments:

The Hitch said...

Iain you are never going to get yourself elected by talking common sense , tell the morons what they want to hear, they need to pay more tax to stop the UK becoming either like siberia or the Sudan.
And of course the Chinese and Indians (half the planets population)will also do their bit.

Anonymous said...

"All I can say is, thank god he never became US president". Because Bush has been such an unqualified success? I'd rather a president who overstates environmental risks than one who goes out of his way to exacerbate them.

Inamicus said...

Do you really think the world is a better place because Bush "beat" Gore in 2000, Iain?

Gore seems not to want to run again; he has made over 1000 presentations on the climate change topic over the last few years. If he wasn't passionately committed to it, don't you think he'd have got bored by now?

If the Tory "green revival" is to mean anything rather than shallow platitudes, the party would do well to heed Gore's message.

Anonymous said...

"All I can say is, thank God he never became US President."

Well, unless you're an especially fine clairvoyant I wouldn't count that particular chicken just yet.

Anonymous said...

He seems like a 'credible' writer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

CityUnslicker said...

The article contains a few factual points that are relevant. However I support Gore overall. Climate change is occuring and our pollution is contributing. Only the US is a barrier to a real Kyoto treaty that would mean we could start making a difference and if it takes Gore to do this to raise the issue then so be it; it ain't like he is going to get elected!

However, some scaremongering is totally over the top as anyone who watched newsnight last night or the bbc this morning will be able to tell you. 4 years to save the world or else; pass me a razor now!!

Reactionary Snob said...

Quite. Then again the choice in 2000 was between a marionette and a puppet.

RS

Anonymous said...

'I am not someone who doesn't believe global warming is happening, but the fact is that climate change is a permanent feature of the plant.'

Feature of the plant? Like the stamen and anther, you mean?

The problem about global warming is that even if it's not entirely man-made, (which most of the evidence points it to being), the effects are still going to be there. We should still be looking to cut energy use and to move beyond fossil fuels, because at some point they will run out, or at the very least get increasing expensive. Even from an purely economic viewpoint this makes sense if you look at 100 years into the future.

Anonymous said...

The trick is to sort out what is caused by us and what isn't

Really, who cares? It's pretty clear from the basic mechanics of the greenhouse effect that more carbon dioxide etc. in the atmosphere will strengthen the effect. It may well be much of the current climate change is natural, but that's no comfort to the people harmed by its effects. If we are to minimise that harm we need the minimise the climate change; we can't affect solar cycles, but we can affect pollution.

This isn't about saving the planet from us - it's about saving us from the planet.

The Druid said...

Come on cut the guy a break. He invented the internet afteral! Seriously, the environment is in a constant state of flux. Indeed it would be odd if human activity did not impact on the world, which is afterall a closed system. Its not climate change that is the problem. Humans adapt to their environment, and no doubt in time we will come up with a solution(s). Its called progress, something we used to believe in. I favour more nuclear power plants, but since the Leader doesn't I am saving for my £20k solar panels. What annoys me is that every example of 'extreme' weather is put down to global warming particularly by the 'Jane and Peter' presenters of the weather: "Wrap up warm", "You might like to take an umbrella", "Don't stay out in the sun too long" and so on....Plleaaaaasseee

Anonymous said...

What do you expect? Every view point is biased, from Al Bore to Iain Dale. The truth is often an elusive idea.

Nevertheless, Gore should be allowed to make an (exaggerate?) point? After all, look what Bush has done, he employed a oil man to act as his resident environmental policy advisor.

MorrisOx said...

Iain, read the science. Free of politics, it's worrying enough in its own right.

Anonymous said...

Yes thank God he never became President, as the alterative was sooooooooooooo much better.

Isnt this what politicans do, splice the truth and shape to suit their needs?

Anonymous said...

Praise the Lord - some common sense at last. And did anyone notice the BBC 10 o'clock News last night presenting global warming as a fact - not a shred of journalistic balance in evidence. "Here you are, unquestioning masses, just lap up what Auntie tells you." Utter drivel. What IS the BBC for?

Anonymous said...

I guess you meant planet, not plant.

Anonymous said...

The trick is also to work out whether the impact we are having on global warming is worth the expense of trying to stop. It may be that the money would be better spent on other worthy causes.

Anonymous said...

lets all keep our fingers crossed that Andrew Bolt is correct - because if global cooling / warming is manifesting at its own pace despite man's best attempts to hasten its implementation , that is just about all we can do.
Blah, blah, blah
Talk about polar positions.

Anonymous said...

The trick is to sort out what is caused by us and what isn't.
Isn't this a waste of time?

If a car rolls down a hill towards you, do you base your decision on whether to move out of its path on whose car it is - yours, or someone else's?

Etzel Pangloss said...

Never trust a hippie (especially wealthy globe trotters).
Someone should be reminded.
Most people can't afford to save the world.

Anonymous said...

Iain,

As ever, just when I started thinking that your blog site isn't actually that bad you say something of such crassness it is inexcusable. Just because you don't like Al Gore doesn't mean the state of the environment isn't of extreme importance to us all.

Forget the surveys, the scientific articles, the anti prop, etc and use your common sense. There is evidence all around you that the planet is heating up. Perhaps time to open your eyes

Anonymous said...

Iain,

Just when I think that your blogsite isn't actually all that bad you go and say something of unbelievable crassness. You keep on doing it.

Forget the scientific reports, academic articles, anti-prop etc and open your eyes. For once use your common sense and see the signs around you.

Yak40 said...

Gore has been spouting quack science for the last twenty years or so, so this is just the latest vehicle for him to perhaps use to run again. Wouldn't that be a treat, Gore vs Hillary vs Kerry with Edwards being trampled underfoot.
Looks like at least one Aussie Minister agrees with you !

Anonymous said...

For a really scientific review of the matter try this :

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

and this :

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

Admittedly, it is heavy going, but please read it & have your eyes opened as to how we're being taken for a ride by climate change propagandists like Gore & our beloved BBC.

Unknown said...

"Thank God Al Gore never became US President".

Which God do you worship, Iain?

Anonymous said...

The trick is to sort out what is caused by us and what isn't. Isn't this a waste of time?

No, it's absoutely central.

If mankind has caused GW, then we have the power to stop it (at least in principle -- but reducing CO2 in the UK to zero would stop about six months of world CO2 growth. And no-one else is reducing the stuff either. Who do we think we are? .. or are kidding, apart from ourselves?)

However if we have not caused it; if it's natural, despite our 'best efforts' to (unintentionally) make it happen, then nothing we can do will make a blind bit of difference about stopping it and there is absolutely no point in trying -- it's beyond our power to make any difference whatever.

Incidentally, the GW panic-merchants have been very quiet about the fact that yes, 1998 was the warmest year since about 1850 (NOT for ever) but every year since then (including this year so far it seems, despite a hot July) has been cooler than the last.

Also, these same people don't like it to be well known, but the world temperature record has tracked very closely sunspot activity since this started to be properly recorded, about 1650. And sunspot activity has been moving into the sort of activity matching cooling, not warming, since about the mid-1990s.

As a rule of thumb that rarely fails, by the time politicians (of any hew) are going around saying 'the science' is settled' or 'there is consensus on X', you can be pretty sure that X has had it's day, and is about to be exposed as nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Did anybody see the South Park episode ripping it out of Al Gore for his constant droning on?

THE WORLD IS THREATENED BY MANBEARPIG!

Anonymous said...

"Just when I think that your blogsite isn't actually all that bad you go and say something of unbelievable crassness. You keep on doing it."

Can we please desist from self-righteous pontificating?

"Forget the scientific reports, academic articles, anti-prop etc and open your eyes. For once use your common sense and see the signs around you."

For the past few summers I've seen less sun than I remember in the 1990s. I can also recall the last few winters I've experienced have been damn cold.

Anonymous said...

The trick is to sort out what is caused by us and what isn't

And then we can all discuss whether or not the results of this exercise are valid or not.

Anonymous said...

After inventing the internet you would have thought that Al Gore would be too tired to save the world from climate change. However, it appears that he is not to tired to speak and only too tired to spend some of his own/family cash on the project.

Anonymous said...

I so hope Tory policy is not guided by some of the misinformed ignoramuses posting here; Nadder being a case in point - Nadder, aerosols like jet exhaust reflect sunlight, CO2 warms the air - net result, more warming when there's no planes. Not proof that global warming doesn't exist - the opposite. Won't bother contradicting all the others, just go and read a few books and articles. GW is real and burrying heads in sand won't help.

Anonymous said...

They are however categoric that global warming is real and is caused by human activity, as are most scientific authorities. At least, those not working for Big Oil. :-)

No, only by those so-called 'scientific authorities' who live by government grants, handed out to them because the've fooled the politicians into thinking GW is real. And that's why they can't admit it's probably not real now; the public might want their money back.

Never forget, the whole case hinges on computer models that are really just variations of the computer models used to forecast the weather. The weather forecasters are pretty accurate for a day or two ahead, doubtful for a week or a month, and useless for a season. But we're supposed to believe them when they forecast the next hundred years.

Yeh, right.

Anonymous said...

Look on the bright side. If Global Warming is real, the North Norfolk constituency will soon be claimed by the North Sea....

Mr. Lamb, just off to rev the V8!

Anonymous said...

Global warming is real, at least for the last three decades or so. Before that we had experienced global cooling, and before that global warming and before that ...

This is a scientific issue of course, but some would like us to beleive that it can be easily rationalised via existing prejudices e.g 'Big Oil', and we all know who usually spouts this type of argument. Surprisingly, none of the top ten biggest oil companies are private companies, but instead are state owned: www.theagitator.com/archives/ 027024.php#027024 (remove space)
It's interesting that the argument against oil is usually linked with an argument against capitalism, whilst the role of larger state oiled companies is *never* mentioned.

AC

Anonymous said...

2br02b, the models are not variations of weather forecasts.

Emma,

GW 'scientists' (I use the term loosely) always say that, but it's not true. The technique is the same, just vastly less reliable.

They can't admit it, because they would be laughed off the stage in minutes if they did.

And the "keystone" model, the fundamental basis upon which Kyoto was devised, the centre-piece of Gore's film, the so-called "hockey-stick' is rapidly becoming a laughing stock.

This 100% independent report demolishes it utterly:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

And of course, we already have proof that if all that carefully selected "vast amounts of historic data" is replaced with random numbers, you get the same result; it's utter twaddle.

Anonymous said...

Gore has been firmly committed to environmental issues for decades. He is a farmer, after all, among many other things.

Climate science, which I have studied at University, is firmly convinced that global warming is a reality. What do you have against that? An Aussie journalist and two reports from an industry-funded think tank with an economic agenda.

Whether you worship or despise Al Gore, you must admit that the climate has gotten weird lately and that being more aware of what we can do to cope with/prevent such bizarre swings can only be a good thing. If there's no change, we won't need those coping mechanisms, but if there IS change, it's better to have them in place.

I live in Canada. I could watch you all drown, but even I have my limits to smug satisfaction.

Anonymous said...

Tories will fall into line just as soon as they realise that the part of Britain they predominately inhabit is also the part settling into the rising sea like Nicholas Soames with punctured water wings.

Anonymous said...

ac - no, global warming on the current scale has not taken place so quickly and sharply for more than 100,000 years. The previous episodes you talk about were natural variations and the current surge is superimposed on top of that natural pattern.

Anonymous said...

Why do you people so avidly believe 100-year climate predictions from "experts" who simultaneously can't predict the weather next Thursday?

Back in the 70's the "experts" were fretting about a possible plunge into an ice-age.

The very worst C02 emissions are sourced from Baby-boom lightweights like Gore.

Anonymous said...

Dale you are a disgrace to the "green" Tory party and we have started a new website called DaleIsNoTory.Com to make sure you don't become an MP. Check it out. You are an ignorant wanker who doesn't give a shit about anything that is worthy. Not even the planet. You are a fascist who wants to mock anyone who you don't agree with. Look at the science and put your petty politics to one side for once. NOT intended for publication./

Dr.Doom said...

Are you kidding Iain?

He is desperately attempting to stop the railroading of Hilary Clinton V Condoleeza Rice certainty.

Al isn't finished just yet.

Doom.

Anonymous said...

Before you start having raptures over Bolt's journalistic integrity (too late?), read: http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/20061005-Climate-change-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html

Anonymous said...

If the Crikey website posting wasn't enough for you, try:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

Andrew Bolt is well known here in Australia, for his penchant for playing devil's advocate at the cost of accuracy and integrity. I don't know anyone on the right or the left side of the 'roo fence who subscribes to his views.