Phil C:

I'll give you that one. I wasn't referring to the mansion in California (very small carbon footprint!) but to the house I'd read he'd bought on a Florida waterfront. I can't find any further reference to it now. So, either he's successfully spiked google searches, or (more likely, I accept) my memory is mistaken.

To salvage something from my wreckage, it's still fair to say that his "carbon" [sic - CO2] footprint for a day probably exceeds mine for a year. And my core belief - that I'll listen to people when they do as they say I should do - still holds good.

It's of limited relevance, however Gore claims to lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle by following his own advice of reduce what you can and offset the rest.

All the profits from his movie and climate change books are donated to his educational charity and the Climate Reality Project he founded reached 0.2 million people in 86 countries in 2014.

Just maybe, if more people followed his example, we'd have less of a problem.

Phil Clarke says

'Just maybe, if more people followed his example, we'd have less of a problem'.

Sorry Phil. The most I can persuade myself to is a few nuisances.

And, according to the UN MyWorld survey, that's pretty much the consensus around the world.

Reminder: Climate change came dead last out of 20 'things to worry about'. It is the Norwegian Blue of global issues.

It is not pinin'! It has passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! 'It has expired and gone to meet 'its maker! 'Its a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! ......It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!!

THIS IS AN EX-ISSUE!

No need to apologise, I'm under no illusions about opinions around here. BTW it was 16 issues not 20, as I pointed out earlier. Rankings rarely paint the whole picture; 2 million votes were cast for action on climate change, by 1 in 5 of those voting, with the ranking rising in developed countries.

In other news the agreement unanimously agreed by all countries in Paris has achieved the 55% ratification needed to bring it into force.

Tweet!

Phil Clarke, rather than endlessly repeating the same failed lies, why don't you get honest, and try to work out which bits of Climate Science shouldn't be binned?

It would be a terrible waste of trillions of pounds if nothing is worth saving, but few people have any trust in any of climate science anymore.

@Phil Clarke

Oh dear, oh lor....

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-carbon-idUSKCN12K2OG

In wake of Paris 'Agreement' France drops Carbon Tax.

Phil C: "Just maybe, if more people followed his example, we'd have less of a problem." Followed by "2 million votes were cast for action on climate change, by 1 in 5 of those voting" which, of course means that 80% of those voting don't agree that there is a problem.

"Gore claims to lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle by following his own advice of reduce what you can and offset the rest." Yeah, yeah, if you say so. Must be nice to be so rich you can burn up as much CO2 as you like, then offset with even more money, just like buying indulgences from the medieval Catholic church. It's a religion, I tell you!

Al Gore supposedly owns a San Francisco condo that would just about be inundated by a 20 foot sea level rise.

Welcome back ACK. However, I think Phil dealt with that one above.

Followed by "2 million votes were cast for action on climate change, by 1 in 5 of those voting" which, of course means that 80% of those voting don't agree that there is a problem.

No, it was a web survey where people were able to select their top 6 issues out of 16. 80% believed things such as education, clean water, food security, communications and stable government had a higher priority. I would agree. But it was remarkable how GW rose up the list as HDI increased. Seems Maslow was onto something.

Al Gore supposedly owns a San Francisco condo that would just about be inundated by a 20 foot sea level rise.

That's not true, even if it were, nobody is predicting 20 feet in Gore's lifetime or probably his grandchildren's. And even if they were, so what? Every professional scientific body of any standing has endorsed the IPCC conclusions, would this be altered by the real estate decisions of a single, albeit prominent politician?

But, as I say, it is not true. That scraping sound is the bottom of the barrel.

So it goes.

Phil Clarke

'Every professional scientific body of any standing has endorsed the IPCC conclusions'

That's fantastic. And if 'global warming' was a political phenomenon that'd be a powerful argument.

But it isn't either.

The observed data consistently fails to match up to the IPCC's predictions. And its the data's vote that counts..not those of 'professional' climate 'scientists'.

Two decades of temperature stasis. If the warming theory is correct then it is masking a natural steep decline in global temperatures. As the hokey stick tells us, such natural steep changes do not occur. Therefore the theory does not fit the dogma. Game over.

Lies PC?

www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb326327.htm
algorelied.com/?p=1585
www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/08/al_gore_buys_san_francisco...

I posted merely for information transfer. I don't believe in an imminent 20 ft sea level rise, but some cretins do - all the talk of tipping points.

Phil

It looks as though ACK has you there. One of the sites he linked to contains (as well as confirmation of the Gores buying a property in San Francisco) the following quote said to be from An Inconvenient Truth:

"I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. It’s a little of both. It’s propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. They’ve measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. It’s considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland.

In 1992 they measured this amount of melting in Greenland. 10 years later this is what happened. And here is the melting from 2005. Tony Blair’s scientific advisor has said that because of what is happening in Greenland right now, the map of the world will have to be redrawn. Global Warming Ice Chart If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas."

If that quote is correct (I stress "if", as I don't have the book to hand to check it) then it makes Gore a steaming hypocrite. Whilst searching on the net, that's 5 Gore-owned properties I've found so far - there may be more. He must be doing a lot of offsetting/purchasing of indulgences.

As for the 80%/20% argument, we are free to draw whatever conclusions we want from the facts. You and I regularly draw diametrically opposite conclusions. Suffice to say, it seems to me that the high-water mark of climate alarmism may already have passed.

Phil

On the last point, I just picked up a link that golf charlie posted at unthreaded: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/21/friday-funny-this-is-why-there-wasnt-presidential-debate-questions-about-climate/

I know you'll say that site is the spawn of Satan, but you might be well-advised to take a look at the survey results quoted there in the USA. Remember, it's generally true that where the USA leads, most of the rest of the world follows.

By the way, isn't it strange that if (as you say) climate alarmism is greater in developing countries rather than in developed ones, it's developing countries that are going to be responsible for the forthcoming increase in CO2 emissions, having requested, and being given, a free ride by COP21 at Paris. And even stranger that places like China can take advantage of the planet-sized loophole that defines it as a developing country.

Ssat

Two decades of temperature stasis.

That turns out not to be the case.

Plot GISTEMP and it's linear trend since 1970 and a continuous warming trend is visible.

Superimpose the famous "no warming since 1998" and the slope of the warming trend is almost identica to the longer term GISTEMP trend.

ACK

Surely, to a geologist, a century is "imminent"

EM. Would you care to stand beneath an unstable cliff face, that a geologist tells you will fail imminently? Do you consider that geologists are used to dealing with immense periods of time, that their views can be ignored?

I stand corrected, it seems the Gores did purchase a condo in SF 11 years ago. I assume he still owns it, but cannot be bothered checking. It is apparently vulnerable to flooding after a 9m rise in sea level. As the IPCC forecast around 40cm by 2100, I don't think he or his immediate descendents have much to worry about. My other criticisms stand, you're just a tiny bit further away from the bottom of the barrel than I surmised.

The observed data consistently fails to match up to the IPCC's predictions. And its the data's vote that counts..not those of 'professional' climate 'scientists'.

Nope, the projections from IPCC 1990 Scenarios B & C - the ones closest to how forcings actually developed, were very close to observations, and here's the most recent model-observation comparison updated with the 2016 data

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvNFuyCXEAE3etW.jpg:large

In a few weeks, world leaders will gather in Paris to negotiate a climate change agreement that will frame the global agenda on this issue for the next decade and beyond. As a new Pew Research Center survey illustrates, there is a global consensus that climate change is a significant challenge. Majorities in all 40 nations polled say it is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% consider it a very serious problem. Moreover, a median of 78% support the idea of their country limiting greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international agreement in Paris.

Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions

In advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this December, many publics around the world name global climate change as a top threat, according to a new Pew Research Center survey measuring perceptions of international challenges. This is particularly true in Latin America and Africa, where majorities in most countries say they are very concerned about this issue. 

Climate Change Seen as Top Global Threat

Research from the Pew Centre.

Phil Clarke says

'Nope, the projections from IPCC 1990 Scenarios B & C - the ones closest to how forcings actually developed, were very close to observations, and here's the most recent model-observation comparison updated with the 2016 data '

I think Phil is very skilled at Texas Sharpshooting.

He commends the 1990 scenarios, shows no evidence for them, then hopes to fool us with some post 2000 unattributed data.

Try again, Phil..we're not stupid. Moving the pea under the thimble is an old trick..and after nearly a decade of dealing with 'climate scientists' and their machinations, we can all see you doing it.

And just as an aside..we'd all have a lot more (some?) respect for climate scientists if they didn't spend most of their time trying to defend the indefensible.