Thursday, September 5, 2013

Washington Times: The globe cools, and Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ does too

Reality intrudes on a hot dream

The globe cools, and Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ does, too

The Washington Times 9/5/13

Al Gore's multimillion-dollar scheme to persuade the world that global warming is about to boil, fry or saute us all is disappearing faster than an ice cube on the sidewalk on a summer day.

The former vice president reached the peak of his popularity with the 2006 release of his Oscar-winning scare-film "An Inconvenient Truth," for which he was hailed as a genius and basked in A-list status at Hollywood soirees. He wasted no time on his return to the spotlight and founded the Climate Reality Project, a group to spread the word about an imminent planetary cataclysm that could only be averted by adopting his agenda. That's the scheme melting now.

Al collected $87.4 million in donations in 2008, and the website BuzzFeed reports that once it caught fire, he could spend nearly $30 million annually on television commercials and grass-roots operations. It even conned some conservatives, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Rev. Pat Robertson, to appear in television commercials. Mr. Gingrich, sadder but wiser, later called the commercial the "dumbest thing I've done in the last four years."

In hindsight, perhaps the Climate Reality Project wasn't such a scorcher of an idea after all. By 2011, receipts had fallen 80 percent, to $17.6 million. Even wealthy liberals aren't terminally stupid. Wallets and purses snapped shut as reality arrived and the promised cataclysmic warming never happened.

The scorekeepers of global-warming alarmism, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, is about to release its fifth Assessment Report, which is said to admit that the planet has been cooling, not warming. A leaked draft version of the report concedes the very inconvenient truth, and casts doubt on the claim that man plays a role in triggering "extreme weather."

The U.N. forgot to send an advance copy of the findings to Mr. Gore. On Thursday, the Nobel Peace Prize winner pointed to dramatic photographs of wildfires in Yosemite National Park, as if the arid Western region had never burned prior to the Industrial Revolution. "As temps rise," Mr. Gore tweeted, "fires are becoming worse and worse across our country."

 Actually, the fires are doing no such thing.

This wildfire season has been the weakest in at least a decade, according to statistics provided by the National Fire Information Center. There were 83,919 blazes in the first nine months of the year that Mr. Gore was the toast of Tinseltown. So far this year, there have only been 35,566 fires, down dramatically from the usual. The total number of scorched acres is down 38 percent from the 10-year average of 6.2 million acres.

Facts aren't likely to deter Mr. Gore's diehard fans. They're the loyal sort who will stand up and say he did, so, invent the Internet, and he really was the inspiration for the insipid movie "Love Story." The groupies will keep mailing in the donations, and so will the crony-capitalist "green" companies, which would profit handsomely if Mr. Gore's dreams and schemes should become actual policy. The cash will keep the incandescent lights on in the Gore house of many mansions, but it won't be enough to restore his credibility. Since the planet hasn't been warming at all, it's only a matter of time before the public catches on and good ol' Al and his schemes will be put permanently on ice.

Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

H/T Junk Science


  1. Why are you ignoring ocean heating?
    It is -- as Roger Pielke Sr wrote recently -- the surest sign of a global energy imbalance.
    So why are you ignoring it?

    1. So why are you still beating your wife?

      I'm not ignoring statistically insignificant deep ocean heating, or statistically insignificant upper ocean heating. Don't you read Bob Tisdale's posts?

      Here's a recent post including 17 other relevant links

      and 30 more's+missing+heat&max-results=30&by-date=true

      Why has the alleged rate of heat transfer to the deep ocean suddenly increased? p.s. wind speeds are down, not up as claimed by Trenberth

      Why hasn't the alleged increased heat transfer to the deep oceans resulted in an acceleration of steric sea level rise?

      Why did Josh Willis adjust the ARGO data from a negative trend to a positive trend?

  2. From wmar,

    Further as to ocean heat and deep ocean warming,as recently clarified by Hans Von Storch, modeling and simulations did not call for land and tropospheric pauses while the deep ocean warmed.

    In other words, this is one more invalidity in the thesis of the IPCC and related-thinkers and fellow-travelers.

    The deep ocean warming whole the troposphere does not - undoes the entire confabulation, and requires editing the thesis.

    While at it they need to edit for much lower sensitivity and start considering negative forcings as well as the true fullness of solar effects.

    But of course they cannot (hence the upcoming AR5's 95% confidence level), and the IPCC's end as a result, for as the Von Storch establishes in a recent paper, he finds models failing at the 5% and 2% confidence levels, depending is he uses 15 or 20 years periods.

  3. From wmar,

    David Appell,

    Pielke wrote specifically about just how many joules are now missing from the oceans, and how many would need to appear, in order to validate the Hansen/GISS assertions made years ago.

    "Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

    For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1 1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter."

    If we believe the ocean temperatures, and plainly note that sea-level rise shows nothing notable at all as a check on our data, we must conclude that the missing heat remains missing, or, is so vastly over-expected, as compared to what actually exists.

    In any case, the position that we are experiencing dangerous accelerating warming driven by carbon is not large enough to register in the troposphere, or the oceans, leaving Hansen's adjustments to land data as the only possible harbinger (and even that shows a pause in the 5 and 10 year data).

    1. Thanks wmar, wholeheartedly agree, and BTW always appreciate your comments at NYT /Dot Earth.