24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’

I'll put my neck on the block here;

Al Gore was right - climate change is occurring, Only and Ostrich with it's head buried in the sand would rationally claim otherwise.

Some of the scientific data he has referenced over the years has been disproved, however he is not a scientist, he just raises the profile of their research. As such, some of this research is pioneering and debunked later on

However he is far from the first person to be aware of the dangers of climate change. Exxon knew about it way back in the 1970's

Exxon has known about climate change for almost 40 years, despite its efforts to continue to promote fossil fuels and deny its existence throughout the 1990s as a leader of the Global Climate Coalition, according to an internal investigation by InsideClimate News.

The reporters reviewed internal records from Exxon XOM -0.20% and found that the company long knew about the harmful effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Exxon researchers even said in a 1978 internal memo that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would increase average global temperatures by as much as 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.

fortune.com...

ETA, I studied Horticulture back in high school - 1987 - 1990. climate and meteorology was part of the curriculum and we were presented with evidence about climate change way back then. We were told that scientists had studied it, published on it and seen their careers go down in flames, but evidence was mounting that fossil fuels were affecting long term weather patterns.

We were told that some countries would experience more drought (like Australia) while others would experience too much rain and suffer from devastating floods and landslides. Any of this sound familiar?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Watts:

warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels

Gore did not say that warming would reach planetary emergency levels by now. He said that by now, it may be too late to make changes to avoid that from occurring in the future.

You said yes the scientists were correct in their prediction

Actually, I didn't say that. I agreed that is a question which needs answering.

a reply to: Phage

I quoted the exact sentence Phage.

Obviously, you don't know what scientists Gore was referring to

You don't know what tipping points he was referring to


So Gore was incorrect when he said that sentence in his speech. Actually to be fair - no one should have paid any attention to anything said in that speech. Scientists are not gypsy's. They can't tell the future. Al Gore was playing chicken little and trying to instill fear in the population.

And although you may not like how Anthony Watts expressed himself, he is essentially correct. It has been 10 years and there is no evidence of ""irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization"

You have disparaged Anthony Watts several times and yet not one word on Al Gore's chicken little act - interesting

But that is your style of debate - nitpick at little details and try to make everyone forget the big picture. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain folks.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So Gore was incorrect when he said that sentence in his speech.

How do you know? You said yourself that is the question which needs an answer. Remember, right here:

Its been 10 years. Were the scientists correct in their prediction That is the question that needs answering

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And although you may not like how Anthony Watts expressed himself, he is essentially correct. It has been 10 years and there is no evidence of ""irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization"

But that is not what he claimed. Once again this is what he said:

Well, the 10 years are about up, by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels”

He said "warming should have reached". Gore did not say that.

nitpick at little details and try to make everyone forget the big picture

If the details upon which the big picture are based are bogus, it does not make for a very convincing picture.

a reply to: Phage

holding one side up to a standard that is different to the standard you use for the other side doesn't make for a very convincing picture either.

Its called bias.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

holding one side up to a standard that is different to the standard you use for the other side doesn't make for a very convincing picture either.

What different standard?
I am comparing what Gore actually said to what Watt said he said.

I remember being at the Leaders in London Summit in late 2007 where Mr Gore spoke for around 90 minutes about climate change.

One of things I remember was his future prediction on CO2 levels, as well as the then current measure. It was, back then, already higher than any levels reached in the 100,000s of years record that he presented and he went on to say that it would double again - but he talked about that happening within a time frame well beyond 10 years, more like 30 or 40. I remember the data he presented as being fantastical. Half the audience did not believe what he was saying.
What I have seen since is that the CO2 levels he predicted have not come to pass, at least yet. Its nearly a decade ago since I was at that presentation and in that decade the numbers have not doubled.

In fact Nasa say that CO2 levels have gone up by 4% since late 2007. Now, it may be that it is going to accelerate further and reach Mr Gore's prediction, but I am very skeptical about that.

That said, we should be aware that the current levels are higher than at any time in 100,000s of years (according to data I saw then and can also confirm now via Nasa), so something is different about our time.

I am somewhat on the fence, therefore, in that I do believe men like Mr Gore have sensationalised the impact for their own ends, but at the same time we do face a problem. From what i understand the temperature correlations to CO2 levels are consistent over time and fairly small increases do have a major impact.

a reply to: Phage

you are applying a standard to Watts where he must make word to word comparisons.

You reject his point that Al Gore said in his speech that carbon emissions that cause global warming will have caused "irretrievable damage' by now.

You are uncritical of Gore for making the statement in the first place, You are uncritical of the "sicentists" who supposedly let Gore in on the big secret.

You forget that there have many scientists who have made public statements to roughly the same effect about tipping points

Such "tipping points" have been discussed publically for so long the IPCC 2007 report had to address the issue:

www.ipcc.ch...

However, the speed and nature of these changes, the tipping point at which change may accelerate and when environmentally, socially and economically significant effects become irreversible, and the cost and effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation responses are all uncertain, to a greater or lesser extent.

Again, Anthony Watts is trying to bring to the public's attention that predicting "tipping points" is a chicken little act using Al Gores speech as an example.

He is more right than Al Gore! You should know enough to say something to that affect. You pretend to know all about global warming but in truth, your knowledge appears rather superficial. You essentially debate by relying on authority arguements without much rational thought put into it.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: UKTruth

Really?

You remember all that? I can't remember what I did last week. I'd need a journal and "timeline" notes for accuracy.

Let me point out I have not taken sides. Asked questions? Yes, but have not shown support either way, other then I doubt it is a conspiracy.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You reject his point that Al Gore said in his speech that carbon emissions that cause global warming will have caused "irretrievable damage' by now.

No. I reject it because Gore did not say that:

by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels”

You are uncritical of Gore for making the statement in the first place, You are uncritical of the "sicentists" who supposedly let Gore in on the big secret.

It can hardly be called a secret.

Again, Anthony Watts is trying to bring to the public's attention that predicting "tipping points" is a chicken little act using Al Gores speech as an example.

No. Anthony Watts is attempting to discredit climate science by presenting strawman arguments.

You essentially debate by relying on authority arguements without much rational thought put into it.

And you rely on Anthony Watts? Why on Earth would you do that?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Again, Anthony Watts is trying to bring to the public's attention that predicting "tipping points" is a chicken little act using Al Gores speech as an example.

He is more right than Al Gore!

Seems a bit obvious you support Anthony Watts opinion.

How is someone "more right"?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: UKTruth

Really?

You remember all that? I can't remember what I did last week. I'd need a journal and "timeline" notes for accuracy.

Let me point out I have not taken sides. Asked questions? Yes, but have not shown support either way, other then I doubt it is a conspiracy.

Yeah I remember the major talking points, especially his big predictions he made. He was one of many speakers and I actually remember a lot more from some of the others. In terms Mr Gore, I think it probably was/is a conspiracy in that some exxaggerations were made in order to push agendas, but not to the point of outright lies - more beneficial estimations shall we say.

a reply to: UKTruth
Do you recall if he had presented a range of values?

a reply to: Phage

I most certainly do not rely on Athonty Watts

You are the one talking "big picture" here. Yet you try to win a point by parsing sentences. You are not "listening". As a matter of fact, you are not "listening" to scientists anymore.

I tried to bring your attention to a study of ocean sediment cores proving that the MWP was a global event. This study shakes the global warming theory to its very core.

You were not interested in looking at the facts at all...you tried to pretend it wasn't important but I know that you know it damn well is.

Fact: Al Gore pushed the global theory scenario by trying to scare the public.

Are you seriously of the opinion, that given the magnitude and cost of switching from fossil fuels to alternative fuels, the public should be stampeded by fear into supporting the theory of global warming?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth
Do you recall if he had presented a range of values?

He did not - he presented a huge chart going back a long time and just showed the line going up and up. The only thing I can remember in terms of numbers was the claim of doubling and am certain it was not 10 years, much longer.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Fact: Al Gore pushed the global theory scenario by trying to scare the public.

That is an opinion.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I actually can't stand this anymore...

...he is essentially correct. It has been 10 years and there is no evidence of ""irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization"

Essentially only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades... he never said irretrievable damage in 10 years

He said:
Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization.

It's about English - and how time works

The tipping point comes before the irretrievable damage

Al wasn't wrong - yet. I hope he is

a reply to: Annee

I support Anthony Watts point. Gore said we would reach the "tipping point" in ten years before there was irretrievable damage. He was trying to scare people. He had no such knowledge as it simply does not exisit.

I already posted the 2007 IPCC Report on the issue of "tipping points". Even the IPCC doesn't know of such tipping points.

I don't believe in scaring the public into supporting the theory of global warming and its attendent polical implications and costs.

If we are going to do this, we need to believe that we are taking the correct course of action based on the available evidence.

Al Gore has been scaring people since the late 1990s and becoming multi-millionaire by doing so. I find that morally reprehensible.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: UKTruth

The only thing I can remember in terms of numbers was the claim of doubling and am certain it was not 10 years, much longer.

Since CO2 concentrations would be based on the use of fossil fuels, that's not entirely unreasonable. But allowances for variation in either direction should have been accounted for. Worst case/best case. Perhaps your correct that only the worst case had been presented. But we won't know for a while.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Read the 2007 IPCC report on the issues of tipping points that I already posted.

Tipping points may or may not exist but they certainly have not been identified with any kind of probability by the release of the 2007 report.

Or do you have different knowlege of the issue of "tipping points.

Tired of Control Freaks