Phil "ad hom" Clarke. Phil, you're better than this. Do yourself a favour, and behave, or I'll stop taking you seriously. Why the obsession with someone who doesn't even post here (an obsession shared by a few of your "green" friends, given the number of links you provide to people seeking to attack him)?

Why do you prefer to do this rather than respond to the arguments made on this thread? To an objective reader (which I suppose I'm not) I would guess the reasons are obvious.

The hilarious part is this:

"Richard S Courtney awarded himself a fake Doctorate and deployed it in attempts to delay action on a key global issue." Yet you vigorously defend Michael Mann's "shared" award, which I assume was "deployed ... in attempts to demand action on [what he regarded as] a key global issue." Take a look in the mirror, Phil. Double standards and ad homs do you no credit.

Phil Clarke, date and time of the post in which you apologised?

Yet you vigorously defend Michael Mann's "shared" award, which I assume was "deployed ... in attempts to demand action on [what he regarded as] a key global issue." Take a look in the mirror, Phil. Double standards and ad homs do you no credit.

No. Dr Mann used the wrong wording in a legal deposition, an error he corrected when it was drawn to his attention. And it was the Peace prize, so he could not have been claiming scientific expertise he did not have. I am not aware he ever claimed to be a Nobel laureate when signing any political petition or open letter. Double standard? Oh yes.

Phil Clarke, date and time of the post in which you apologised?

Dec 28, 2018 at 11:45 AM | Charly

Must respond to this. Yes. My father does have a PhD.

Dec 21, 2018 at 3:32 PM | M Courtney

M Courtney: If that is the case then of course I sincerely apologise. Out of interest do you know the subject of his Doctoral thesis, and which institute awarded the Ph.D and when?

Dec 21, 2018 at 4:15 PM | Phil Clarke

Just for the record, Stormfront Phil Clarke knew from the start that my father's PhD is honourary. 

Untrue. Even if so, self-incriminating; Courtney signed himself 'PhD', not 'PhD (hon)'. But I suspect the honourary degree is as imaginary as the real one. Lies upon lies.

MC fantasised about my death:

 Everyday I log in and see you swinging from that self-made noose

MC Was offensive about my mental health and ethics e.g. 'loony racist', 'trying to convert others to wear your white-pointy hat.'

And just plain lied:

you have backed down from suggesting that AGW is an urgent issue.

The offer to apologise still stands. All MC has to do is substantiate his claim that Richard S holds a PhD, honourary or otherwise. A sceptic might ask: If he can, why hasn't he?

And yet, on Planet Charly, it is I who owes the apology? FFS.

Upthread I was advised to look in the mirror. Good advice.

Have a happy 2019.

Phil - some say it'll affect your eyesight eventually

[Phil Clarke]:

I am often amused by how many false statements Anthony Watts can pack into a headline, today he has delivered in spades.
Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

That is about this post.
Which includes a link to this video (Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years), which is clearly dated December 14, 2009. And also contains the logo of COP15.

[Phil Clarke]:

Only one little problem, COP15 happened in December 2009, not 2008.

True, it is 9 years ago not 10.

[Phil Clarke]:

Secondly, Watts claims that Gore made a 100% certain forecast of an ice-free Arctic. This never happened. Gore cited a study (by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) that assigned a 75% probability to the Polar Ice Cap being ice free in summer 'in 5 to 7 years'. Confusingly, he also mentioned a date of 2030.

False. That is not what Watts claimed. He claimed that Gore made a forecast of an ice-free Arctic (during summer).

[Anthony]:

Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

And just listen to the accompanying video, Al does indeed say that the ENTIRE artic ice cap could disappear, albeit just during part of the summer, with 75% chance (so pretty high chance), within the next 5 to 7 years. Full Stop & Pause.

Then he says that 'Bob used the figure of 2030' which Al then explains as his (Dr. Maslowski) estimate based on volumetrics, and then he (Al) says: "we will find out", which to me indicates that his (Al's) prediction is 5 to 7 years (by 2014 to 2016) and that 'Bob'(Dr. Maslowski) predicts this to happen by 2030, but that Al expects this to happen much sooner.
So it is not 'confusingly' that he also mentions 2030, he just mentions it as a secondary estimate from 'Bob', and the impression he gives is that the second estimate is the upper (latest by) estimate, but that his (Al's) estimate is that it could be as soon as 5 to 7 years.

[Phil Clarke]:

Thirdly, the forecast was for summer ice, the fact that 'it's still there' in December would not be a falsification.

Indeed, but the fact that it is still there during the summer IS a falsification. And this is what Anthony actually said:

[Anthony]:

As you can see from the graph above, Arctic sea ice came nowhere close to disappearing during the summer minimum, and has rebounded to be within 2 standard deviations in the last few weeks.

During the summer minimum, the North polar ice cap looked like this:

So apart from the number of years ago (9 not 10), Anthony is correct. Al did make that statement and it is clearly a wrong prediction.

The correct headline would therefore have been:
Nine years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

And it is, also during summer.

By the way: Given the extent & volume still seen during the summer minimum last year, and the development during all these years, it seems rather unlikely to me that the Arctic will be ice-free in 2030, or 2040 for that matter.

" ..  it seems rather unlikely to me that the Arctic will be ice-free in 2030, or 2040 for that matter.
Jan 4, 2019 at 12:09 AM | JayJay"

But that does not stop catastrophic Climate Scientists from making more catastrophic predictions based on catastrophic Science, that are broadcast by catastrophic publicity seekers.

JayJay

100% is not the same as 75%.

2009 is not the same as 2008.

Apart from those details, your analysis is spot on.

Watts is a propagandist. Deal with it.

Jan 4, 2019 at 11:11 PM | Phil Clarke
Climate Scientists are unreliable. Trump is dealing with it.

"I am still puzzled as to why there is this complaint about WUWT “propaganda” on this site.
Jan 5, 2019 at 11:12 AM | Radical Rodent"

Because "Phil Clarke" got himself banned from WUWT. If you use the search function at WUWT, you may find out more, but I would not describe it as education, unless you need to learn how desperate Climate Scientists were getting a few years ago.

Since them, Climate Science has Peer Approved and Published Gergis and Harvey et al, which quite clearly prove that Climate Science is survivng on fumes, hot air and other people's money. They are self sufficient in fumes and hot air. They seem to have "piqued" other people and their money.

Phil Clarke:

"Watts is a propagandist. Deal with it."

Very possibly, but there are propagandists on both sides, and those on your side are the better funded and with the longer reach (the BBC being the most obvious example). We have to deal with that too! Isn't it good, for the purposes of debate, to have people propagating alternative points of view? Or does the "consensus" have to be enforced?

Or does the "consensus" have to be enforced?

Of course it does. Ask mama Oreskes, she wants Gleichschaltung!

100% is not the same as 75%.

Anthony Watts never even mentioned a percentage for the chance, as it is irrelevant.

Gore claimed that ALL Arctic Ice WOULD disappear, and that this COULD happen as early as 5-7 years from now (and that apparently had the 75% chance).
It did not happen by the time he professed and it will not happen by 2030, that much is clear.

So Anthony was right. You are grasping straws.

And it will not happen by 2040, 2050 or 2060 for that matter.
Look at the charts, study the data.
There is, and was, nothing in the data which could suggest to a well educated person, let alone a well educated scientist, that a chance of 75% was ever even remotely possible.
It's bad statistics, bad science, fake science even!

WUWT highlight the latest propaganda ..........

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/04/al-gore-predicts-2020-political-climate-change-tipping-point/

"I guess after getting the science wrong so many times Al Gore feels safer predicting a political tipping point than another dodgy “Ice Free Arctic” prediction.

Al Gore: America Is Close to a ‘Political Tipping Point’ on Climate Change

The former vice president discusses how the politics of the environment have changed considerably over his decades of advocacy."

"It's bad statistics, bad science, fake science even!
Jan 5, 2019 at 3:06 PM | JayJay"

It is also proving disastrous for politicians. Where would Ed Miliband be without the Climate Change Act, as endorsed by Merkel and now Macron?

Gore claimed that ALL Arctic Ice WOULD disappear, and that this COULD happen as early as 5-7 years from now (and that apparently had the 75% chance)

Go on, then. Quote the exact words where he said that.

He did not. Watts is a liar.

Jan 5, 2019 at 10:53 PM Phil Clarke

You are the expert on Climate Science lies, do you think Al Gore misunderstood all the Climate Science lies about Arctic Ice death spirals, or have they been disappeared instead of the ice?

"Go on, then. Quote the exact words where he said that."

LOL, I don't think I'll waste my time doing that.
Gore is barely audible at times when he turns to the screen (strange way of presenting BTW), and in many of his sentences he speaks of the cuff, difficult to follow.Like his comments about 'Bob'.
But what I described is the gist of what he said in that video (or is simply literally what he said). He says it between 2:16 to 2:20 in the video I linked to (here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI&feature=youtu.be)
"that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer [repeated] months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

What I described is what he said, also according to The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arctic-summer-ice-may-be-gone-in-five-years-al-gore-warns-tqxrj9chvfn
"Arctic summer ice may be gone in five years, Al Gore warns
Philippe Naughton, in Copenhagen
December 14 2009, 5:22pm,
The Times

The Arctic polar ice cap could disappear entirely in the summer months in as little as five years, Al Gore, the former American Vice-President, said today.

Mr Gore was the star draw at a Copenhagen summit side event during which Scandinavian scientists delivered a grim update on the state of the Greenland ice sheet and its potential to contribute to rising sea levels over the coming century."

Another article from the Times (a day later) gives a cleaned up 'quote' (for example here repeats "summer, in the summer" etc) .

http://web.archive.org/web/20100106071917/www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
The Times - 2009-12-15 - "Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up"

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Jan 5, 2019 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJayJay

Just imagine how much worse it could have been if he had become President, and able to influence quantitative things like spending and taxation where numbers are occasionally important?
Or maybe "Read my lips. No new Arctic Sea Ice."? :)
(To keep some perspective, people have also pointed out that Bush was smart enough, and duplicitous enough, to know the difference between "No new taxes, and "No extra taxes.")

Propaganda based on exaggerated claims can be very lucrative for the few. Inconvenient Facts have never stopped Al Gore from making millions.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud

So we agree. Gore used the words 'may' and 'could'. Watts claims Gore sad 'Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone', which is untrue. Watts is a liar. Glad we agree.

I see it's Willis's turn with the fibs. How do you 'discredit' James Hansen's 30 year old projections? Simple, just quote the numbers for CO2, and ignore methane and CFCs which account for most of the variation in the scenarios. Then plot Hansen's scenario A, and ignore the Scenarios B & C, which when you consider all the forcings, turned out to be nearer to reality.

Nick Stokes nails the lie:

… all this was rehashed just 6 months ago, on the 30-year anniversary. A full analysis of the scenarios is here. The outcome was between B and C. It is true that CO2 was not far from Scenario A. But A and B were virtually the same for CO2 over the period. Scenario B was actually closer, but that made little difference. The big effects on scenario were the slow rise of CH4 and the big restriction of CFC’s, neither anticipated by A […] Incidentally, it isn’t just my assessment that the scenario that was followed is between B and C. Here is Steve McIntyre:

“As to how Hansen’s model is faring, I need to do some more analysis. But it looks to me like forcings are coming in below even Scenario B projections.”

Jan 7, 2019 at 11:32 AM | Phil Clarke

You are confirming that Gore pushes Climate Science propaganda, linked to his own financial interests, just like the Hockey Teamsters.