Now that I have realised (see this) that Al Gore is a vicious fascist intent on deliberately telling lies to confuse people, I checked whether there has been any analysis of his lies. And yes, there has been significant analysis by experts of his lies.
Two extracts, below. This is enough.
First, worth noting the fabricated Mann hockey stick graph:
FACT Initially claimed as proof that human activity causes global warming, the ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature graph by Mann et al (1998) is the foundation for Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and of the argument that human activity caused global warming. It was used extensively in UN IPCC reports only to subsequently be proved an unscientific fabrication and dropped by the UN IPCC—after the UN IPCC used the graph to foster world-wide the unfounded illusion of rapid, unusual rising of global temperatures.
FACT The graph’s construction bypassed peer review processes and without proof contradicted hundreds of scientists by falsely purporting Earth’s recent temperatures to be far hotter than at any time in the previous 1,000 years. It is a fabrication discredited by scientists worldwide. Many scientists have validated two Canadian statisticians McKitrick and McIntyre in exposing unscientific and error-filled processes used to manipulate data and fabricate the hockey stick graph. Michaels (2005 chapter 2), Singer (2008), McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), Wegman in chapter 2 of the book by Canadian environmentalist Solomon (2008).
FACT Recently, it was confirmed (Jolis, 2009 and McIntyre, 2009b) that the other similar graph by Keith Briffa was fabricated through selective and misleading use of data. With appropriate data selection the purported elevation of recent temperatures disappears.
KATRINA
Katrina was falsely used by the extreme environmental movement as ‘proof’ of global warming. Significantly, Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ played alarmingly and fearfully on Katrina. Records show previous hurricanes have naturally extended far further into North America, reaching Canada.
BRITISH HIGH COURT’S VIEW
In its ruling, the British High Court (Taylor, in Newswire, 2007) as reported by the BBC and The Heartland Institute, ruled that ‘An Inconvenient Truth is a political work containing numerous factual inaccuracies. Some detailed reports of the ruling claim virtually every assertion Al Gore makes in his movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science.
MARLO LEWIS’S DEMOLITION OF AL GORE’S LIES
Marlo Lewis (2007) provides an outstanding, detailed analysis of the book written by Al Gore and entitled ‘An Inconvenient Truth. The books content is close to that of the movie of the same name. Unlike Al Gores book, Lewis Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references, mostly scientific, including web sites so readers can readily check Lewis’ findings for themselves. Lewis analysis exposes the books 99 duplicitous statements:
- Wrong statements, false statements 19;
- Misleading statements 17;
- Exaggerated statements 10;
- One sided statements 25; and
- Speculative statements 28.
Detailed measurement and analysis of Al Gore’s movie
My careful analysis reveals:
- 234 images of natural and everyday events falsely depicted as unnatural and inferred to be caused by global warming;
- 71 images and instances of unscientific, unfounded mixing of projections with actual data to imply future climate;
- 59 instances of comments/images out of context or misrepresenting reality;
- 74 instances of using the ‘crowd effect’; and,
- 0 valid data supporting the movies claim that human production of CO2 drives temperature. All this packed with cleverly orchestrated repetition into less than 90 minutes.
Lord Monckton (2007a) has cited 35 serious scientific errors and distortions in ‘An Inconvenient Truth all pointing to invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist.
Al Gore claims ice core data showed CO2 drove global temperature increase. Yet in reality, with improved technology enabling finer time resolution of ice cores, the data showed temperature rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2. This emerged in 2003 two years before Al Gores movie was made. Evans (2008b).
Lack of any peer-reviewed data proving human activity causes global warming. None.
Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Klaus (2007) exposes the movies subtle and deliberately deceptive methods and misrepresentations.
One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. As I discuss in the book, this is what he did in his first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), too.
Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year. The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans.
Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing.
Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the “cost” of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from.
I present a powerful case that most of what he presents is, at the very least, very deceptive.
LIES EXPOSED BY MARC MORANO.
Gore sequel claim: 9/11 Memorial Flooding in NYC: The Inconvenient Sequel features video of the 9/11 Memorial in New York City flooding from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The video clips are used as vindication of Gore’s warning in his first 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” that NYC was going to flood due to rising sea levels.
Reality Check: First off, scientists have rejected a Sandy/Climate Link. Second, Gore is completely conflating two different events and tricking viewers into thinking he accurately called it. As Fox News reporter John Stossel explained: “Gore claims ‘the most criticized’ part of the film was his assertion that the 9/11 memorial site would flood. Then, during Hurricane Sandy, it did! But Gore creatively misremembers his own movie. He had claimed the World Trade Center would flood because of a permanent 20-foot sea-level rise. Actual scientists called that nonsense. It would take hundreds of years for such a thing to possibly happen. But since the area flooded, briefly, Gore spins that as confirmation of his exaggerations.”
Statistician Bjorn Lomborg, weighed in: “Gore still trying to scare you into saving the world…Gore’s prescriptions—for New York and the globe—won’t work. He claims the answer to warming lies in agreements to cut carbon that would cost trillions of dollars. That would not have stopped Sandy. What New York really needs is better infrastructure: sea-walls, storm doors for the subway, porous pavement.”
Gore sequel claim: Global warming causing fish to swim in streets of Miami – Gore: “I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rise now.” Gore in his sequel and in numerous media interviews hypes the fact that Miami has “fish from the ocean” swimming in “the streets of Miami-Dade and Delray, Ft. Lauderdale.” The film features Gore walking around the flooded streets of Miami wearing big boots.
Reality Check: As Chapter ?? reported, sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago and there is currently no acceleration in sea level rise. But Gore very cleverly tries to present his “science by anecdote” in his sequel. Instead of showing scientific charts revealing the alleged acceleration of sea levels in Miami due to man-made global warming, Gore instead has a man in the film just say he has lived there all his life and never saw anything like it. That is Al Gore’s version of “scientific truth.” But the scientific data trumps a man’s personal recollection of 40 years ago.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer debunked Gore’s claims on Miami and sea level. “One of Gore’s favorite tactics is to show something that happens naturally, then claim (or have you infer) that it is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions,” Spencer wrote. “For example, sea level rise. Gore is seen surveying flooded streets in Miami Beach,” Spencer added.
Spencer explained “that flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach.”
Spencer concluded: “In other words, Miami Beach was going to have to deal with the increased flooding from their ‘king tides’, with or without carbon dioxide emissions.” “Miami Beach occurs during high tides called ‘king tides,’ due to the alignment of the Earth, sun and moon. For decades they have been getting worse in low-lying areas of Miami Beach where buildings were being built on reclaimed swampland,” Spencer added.
Miami Herald warmist columnist Andres Oppenheimer was not impressed with Gore’s Florida sea level claims. “In his new book, Truth to Power, the Nobel Prize winner projects that the sea level in South Florida will rise by half a foot by 2030, two feet by 2060 and ‘up to seven feet or more’ by 2100,” Oppenheimer wrote. “Most scientists I’ve asked about the future of Miami Beach — full disclosure: I live in a beachfront apartment in Miami Beach — tell me that this city won’t disappear under the water, nor will it become another Venice.”
When UK Spectator journalist Ross Clark challenged Gore about his sea level rise claims in Miami, Gore was not tolerant, abruptly ending their Q and A session. “As soon as I mention professor [Shimon] Wdowinski [a Miami flooding expert at the Florida International University] name, [Gore] counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a denier?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a denier?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a denier.’ That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film.’” “You must swallow whole the apocalyptic vision he presents – or else,” wrote Clark.
Gore sequel claim: Greenland is melting away causing dangerous sea level rise – “Greenland, for example, has been losing one cubic kilometer of ice every single day,” Gore said. Gore hypes one warm day in Greenland in 2016 to back up his claims, along with successive images of cyclical melting Greenland ice.
Reality Check: Greenland is not in any threat of melting away. Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer refuted Gore’s Greenland claims. “Gore is also shown jumping across meltwater streams on the Greenland ice sheet. No mention is made that this happens naturally every year,” Spencer wrote. “Sure, 2012 was exceptional for its warmth and snow melt (which he mentioned), but then 2017 came along and did just the opposite with record snow accumulation, little melt, and the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere for a July,” Spencer added.
“The fact that receding glaciers in Alaska are revealing stumps from ancient forests that grew 1,000 to 2,000 years ago proves that climate varies naturally, and glaciers advance and recede without any help from humans. So, why is your SUV suddenly being blamed when it happens today?” Spencer asked.
Gore sequel claim: The roads are melting due to global warming! – Roads are melting somewhere in the world due to rising temperatures. In his talks promoting his film, Gore features images from India to show how global warming is melting roads.
Reality Check: Australian climate skeptic Jo Nova rebutted Gore’s claims. Nova wrote: India’s “NDTV shows a video where this man’s shoes stick to the hot road and fall off. Call me a skeptic. I’ve bounded across searing bitumen roads here in Australia, and this man is not behaving as if the pavement is blisteringly hot. Would you put your hand down? Note the “Highlights” in the NDTV story: “Tar on roads melts in Valsad, Gujarat, temperature was only 36 degrees C” ( 96.8F). Yeah. yeah. That’s ‘body temperature’. Terrifying.”
Nova continued: “Most likely the melting roads are due to sloppy road construction and cheap materials instead of our fossil fuel emissions. Tar was melting at just 40C in India, according to the Times of India, due to ‘improper mixing of bituminous’ materials. ‘According to the UK-based Road Surfaces Treatment Association, most roads will start melting at a temperature of 50 degrees celsius. Roads in the United Arab Emirates are made of special ‘polymer modified binders’ which keep them solid up until around 80 degrees celsius.”
Gore sequel claim: Gore claims that wheat and corn yields are down in China by 5% in recent decades.
Reality Check: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer challenged Gore’s claims. “Some of what Gore claims is just outright false. He says that wheat and corn yields in China are down by 5% in recent decades. Wrong. They have been steadily climbing, just like almost everywhere else in the world,” Spencer wrote.
Gore sequel claim: Renewable energy like solar and wind are cheaper and ready to take over now for fossil fuels.
Reality Check: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer debunks Gore’s energy claims. “It is obvious that Gore does not consider government subsidies when he talks about the ‘cost’ of renewable energy sometimes being cheaper than fossil fuels. Apparently, he hasn’t heard that the citizens pay the taxes that then support the alternative energy industries which Gore, Elon Musk and others financially benefit from. If and when renewable energy become cost-competitive, it won’t need politicians and pundits like Mr. Gore campaigning for it,” Spencer wrote.
Bjorn Lomborg was blunt about Gore’s renewable energy claims: ‘The global economy is far from ready to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind. The International Energy Agency, in its 2016 World Energy Outlook, found that 0.6% of the world’s energy is supplied by solar and wind. Even with the Paris accord fully implemented, that number would rise only to 3% in a quarter-century,” Lomborg explained.