Gore 2006 ‘tipping point’ claims were NOT accurate – Climate Depot debunks – Bonus chapter on Gore’s failed claims
Climate Depot Exclusive
Former Vice President Al Gore is now claiming that his infamous “tipping point” issued in 2006 was correct. See: Al Gore: 2006 Global Warming ‘Point of No Return’ Claim Was ‘Accurate’
Also see: Earth ‘serially doomed’: The official history of climate ‘Tipping Points’ began in 1864 – A new ‘global warming’ 12-year deadline from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez – Climate Tipping Points date back to at least 1864
Bonus Chapter on Al Gore’s climate claims from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
In the of summer 2017, former Vice President Al Gore released his sequel, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The film, a follow up to his 2006 An Inconvenient Truth, opened to tepid and worse reviews even by many climate activists who are sympathetic to the climate cause. And Gore’s sequel tanked at the box office in 2017.
The sequel came in a dismal 15th at U.S. theaters during its widespread August 4th weekend release, according to Box Office Mojo. Gore’s defenders have been quick to blame Paramount Pictures for the dismal performance of Gore’s sequel. “Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again,” screamed the headline of D.R. Tucker in Washington Monthly. “This was not supposed to happen,” Tucker wrote, adding, “he should have demanded a recount.” “Sadly, the box-office under-performance of An Inconvenient Sequel will be seized upon by climate-change deniers as ‘proof’ that Americans don’t really care about this issue,” Tucker wrote on August 7, 2017.
The UK Daily Mail reported that Gore’s sequel made “less than original – despite appearing on more than TWICE as many screens.” This dismal box office performance will disappointed Gore, who had urged his followers to pack movie theaters to send a message to “Trump and the other climate deniers.” “By filling theaters, we can show Donald Trump and the other climate deniers in the White House that the American people are committed to climate action –– no matter what they do, say, or tweet!” Gore wrote in an email alert sent to his supporters on Friday August 4th, the day of his nationwide opening.
Gore fans like Tucker were reduced to blaming the distributor for the sequels disappointing box office. “A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release of the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which finished in 15th place in US theatres this weekend,” Tucker explained.
Excuses pile up
And the excuses for the lackluster box office for the Gore sequel kept piling up. The left-leaning website Huffington Post offered this excuse: “The movie came out during a rough season for sequels.” Gore’s production partner, Participant Media, attempted to spin the sequel’s theatrical bomb, by telling the Huffington Post that the company never expected the sales to top the 2006 original film. Jeff Bock, senior analyst at the box office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations, offered even more excuses. “Al Gore isn’t necessarily the hot-button person that he once was in 2006, that’s how quickly the winds of change occur in a political circle,” Bock said. “That’s not that much different in the Hollywood circles, as well. An actress hot 10 years ago may barely have a career today.” He added: “Obviously you look at the disparity between the first one and the sequel at the box office, and that plays a big part.”
Public cools to Gore
Gore has not exactly been red hot with the public in recent years. Gore’s extremely low rated Current TV finally went under in 2013 and he sold it to Al Jazeera. But just how lower were the ratings for Gore’s Current TV? The Hollywood Reporter noted in 2011 that Gore’s TV network “averaged 18,000 homes in prime time for fourth quarter 2010, lower than any other network measured by Nielsen.”
In addition, Gore held a 2013 climate “24 Hours of Reality” online event that reportedly generated dismal public interest.
In 2015, Gore was forced to cancel his worldwide Live Earth event and had to replace it with just one event, a “climate telethon” in Paris and that event was cancelled mid show due to the city’s terror attacks.
Meanwhile, climate activists at the Huffington Post blamed Gore’s (hypocritical) lifestyle, by noting that his “stupendous wealth complicates his climate message.” “He is a flawed character,” Stephen Lacey, editor-in-chief of the magazine GreenTechMedia, said. “We’re in an era of backlash against elites, so Gore, a guy who bought a 6,500-square-foot seafront home in California for $8.8 million, and who hangs around with other celebrities who talk big on climate but who live lavish lifestyles, is the perfect target at this point in time,” Lacey added.
Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, told the Huffington Post, “Many people out there simply cannot compartmentalize and say, ‘I loathe and detest Al Gore the politician because of his liberal politics, but when he talks about climate change, he’s got a real point,.” Leiserowitz added, “As a messenger, he makes it too easy for conservatives to reject the entire concept of climate change, let alone the policies that might address it.” The Huffington Post article added, “But by not addressing his wealth head-on, Gore does little to assuage critics who may not be partisan but read mendacious motives into his climate gospel.”
Gore’s activism and films may have backfired and strengthened climate skepticism, according to a 2017 study from the University of British Columbia. The study’s authors wrote that Gore’s 2006 film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, served “as a catalyst in the polarization of American public opinion on climate change.” They found that “Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.” Climate skeptic Steven Hayward commented, “This study suggests is that Al Gore is the best friend climate skeptics ever had.” “The best way to stop climate action is to give Gore more air time,” Hayward added.
Even long-time climate activists were not happy to see Gore back with a sequel. The warmist New Republic featured a July 2017 article titled, “The Troubling Return of Al Gore” and noted “Not everyone on the left is celebrating Gore’s reemergence—and for reasons that sometimes contradict each other. Some worry he’s too polarizing a figure, and therefore could paralyze progress on climate change.” Warmist Wen Stephenson explained: “If Gore himself is trying to appeal to bipartisanship, I’d tell him to stay home.”
Another activist, Anthony-Rogers Wright, added: “We need to break away from this idea that the Leonardo DiCaprios and the Gores are the ones who will solve this.” The New Republic article concluded: “Gore is the most polarizing figure in climate politics—disputed on the left, and widely loathed on the right. According to research by environmental scholar Andrew Hoffman published in 2011, nearly 40 percent of all articles casting doubt on climate change mentioned Gore.” Hoffman noted, “He had become extremely provocative for many people, and that limited his voice.”
Climate activists give sequel thumbs down
The reviews of An Inconvenience Sequel by Gore’s fellow climate activists and media sympathizers was also less than stellar.
A warmist Miami Herald columnist worried that “Gore’s movie may be too Gore-centric.”
Warmist Randy Olson wrote: “It just didn’t have a good story…Inept…Ambling narrative structure.” “Gore continues to surround himself with people who don’t really know what they’re doing. As a result, his new movie isn’t bad, it’s just middling.”
Westword’s Review: Gore’s sequel an “aimless travelogue of meet-&-greets & brand building, lacking urgency of 2006 film.”
Vox Review: Gore’s sequel “not a great movie…unfocused…bent the truth on India…light on the facts” “Watching Gore present graphs and data to rooms full of people who want to advocate on behalf of sustainable energy efforts around the world, it’s hard not to grow cynical. Sure, they’re applauding — but who wouldn’t be? It’s a self-selecting crowd, right?”
Slant website Review: “An Inconvenient Sequel is usually transparent in its unbridled and excessive adulation of Al Gore…muddled by its designated emissary’s own uncouth grandstanding.”
So how does the author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change review Gore’s film? I went to a local suburban mall cineplex on a Saturday night in July 2017 to see Gore’s sequel. There were only about 12 other people in the theater. The film held many surprises and a very satisfying ending. Who would have thought that a film that featured weather disasters and apocalyptic predictions of climate doom would have a happy ending!
The ending has a stand-up and cheer moment when President Donald Trump announces the U.S. is exiting the UN climate pact. It also features Trump announcing the end to EPA “climate regulations” and reveals that former President Barack Obama’s global warming agenda was being dismantled. Just when you think the U.S. is doomed to give up sovereignty, and become entangled in the most expensive treaty in world history — for no climate gain — along comes the hero of the film — President Trump — restoring sanity to the U.S. domestic and international climate policy. The movie has a satisfactory ending because the UN pact is being tossed into the dustbin of history. A crowd pleasing moment for Americans.
Still true today
The late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings reported in 1998: “Al Gore genuinely believes that if he does not prevail, the apocalypse is coming. His opponents think he is the danger.”
The Sequel opens with a fantastic montage of completely rational comments from climate skeptics like President Trump, Senator James Inhofe, John Stossel and others ridiculing climate change claims. Then the viewer is bombarded with 90 minutes of the light comedy of Gore implying that a UN climate agreement — the most expensive treaty in world history — will somehow save humanity and warning us that weather disasters are going to come for us unless we support the pact. But, all begins and ends well in Gore’s climate thriller this time around. Skeptics are featured opening the film in triumph by mocking climate claims and skeptics are featured ending the film by dismantling the climate agenda. It was a tour de force to see the U.S. executive branch under Trump return to a pro-science agenda by rejecting the witchcraft-based belief that EPA regulations and UN climate treaties can alter global temperature and the frequency of storms.
The Gore Effect
Gore premiered Inconvenient Sequel amid cold and snow at Robert Redford’s the Sundance film Festival in Utah. The premiere of his “global warming” film in the cold and snow was consistent with “The Gore Effect.”
Politico defined the phenomenon in 2009: “For several years now, skeptics have amusedly eyed a phenomenon known as ‘The Gore Effect’ to half-seriously argue their case against global warming. The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather. For instance, in March, 2007, a Capitol Hill media briefing on the Senate’s new climate bill was cancelled due to a snowstorm.”
A few surprises of Gore’s sequel include him actually praising fossil fuels and India rejecting limits on fossil fuels for moral reasons because they want to develop their nation. Gore conceded during his tour to promote the film: “We have had tremendous benefits from our reliance on fossil fuels. Poverty has declined, living standards have increased and we still depend on them for more than 80% of world’s energy.”
Can the UN Paris agreement save your organs?
In Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” the former Vice President features a professor of pediatrics warning that global warming is impacting our health.
“Every organ system can be affected by climate change. When I say that, I get goosebumps,” says Pediatrician Susan Pacheco, a professor of pediatrics at University of Texas McGovern Medical School, in Gore’s new book. Pacheco warns in Gore’s new book that climate change is already making us sick. “There’s heart disease, there’s lung disease, there’s kidney disease,” she says in Gore’s book.
Of course, in between the rousing opening and joyful denouement of the film, lies the rest of the film. And in that chunk of film, many inaccurate and outrageous climate claims typical of Gore are made. Gore’s claim have been taken apart by climate scientists. Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer ripped Gore’s sequel, calling it “Chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors.” Spencer explained on August 19, that after viewing the film, “I was more than a little astounded. The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors. I was inspired to do something about it. I’d like to announce my new e-book, entitled An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, now available on Amazon.com.” “What I am opposed to is misleading people with false climate science claims and alarming them into diverting vast sums of the public’s wealth into expensive energy schemes,” Spencer wrote.
Inconvenient book sales
Climate scientist Roy Spencer’s e-book An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, went on to outsell Gore’s companion e-book to his film sequel titled, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power: Your Action Handbook to Learn the Science, Find Your Voice, and Help Solve the Climate Crisis.
Gore’s climate sequel book was running at #20,768 overall on Amazon, and it was not ranked #1 in any sub-category. “But [Spencer’s] skeptic take-down of Gore’s new movie and book, was at #956, and is #1 in three sub-categories,” Spencer reported.
In perhaps the most maudlin and shocking scenes of the sequel, Gore features himself walking through graveyards, grisly scenes of body-bags, and grieving families of the victims of 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan that devastated the Philippines, killing over 6000 people. This was perhaps the most single most disgusting moment of the sequel. The viewer cannot help but feel that Gore is shamelessly exploiting the victims and using their pain to score unscientific political points about Typhoon Haiyan.
The science does not back Gore’s claims at all. Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue rejected any such links of Haiyan to human activity. “Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones. Don’t be so arrogant to believe man caused Haiyan,” Maue wrote in 2013. Maue demolished claims made by Gore and others that Typhoon Haiyan was “strongest storm ever.” “Fact: Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower from historical records,” Maue wrote. “50 of 58 Super Typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower occurred from 1950-1987 — only 8 in past 25 years,” he added.
FACT CHECKING AL GORE’S SEQUEL
At my website Climate Depot I issued a report on some of the key climate falsehoods in Gore’s sequel. Below are some key excerpted sections. (Fact-Checking & Review of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ – Official Gore Sequel Rebuttal – Special Report)
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: – Gore Saves the UN Paris Pact: The last part of the film features Gore intensely lobbying for the UN Paris climate pact in December 2015. The film shows Gore lobbying India to sign on to the pact and portrays his role as the savior of the treaty by getting India solar technology from U.S. firm.
Reality Check: Portraying Gore as the key to saving the UN climate pact in 2015, has been heavily disputed. A July article in the environmental trade publication E&E News reported that a top Indian diplomat essentially says Gore’s claim is nonsense. Via E&E News wire: “Viewers of the long-awaited sequel to An Inconvenient Truth walk away from the film with the impression that former Vice President Al Gore brokered a deal with India that saved the Paris climate accord in 2015…Gore presents this quid pro quo in another Paris cellphone call to Goyal, in which he says SolarCity’s offer is good ‘if in return for this India removed its potential objections to the climate treaty.’ ‘I am not aware of any such linkage, and neither are my colleagues in the negotiating team,” said Ajay Mathur, one of India’s top negotiators in Paris. ‘None of us recall any discussion in the negotiating team on any such linkage; I don’t recall an offer of solar technology being discussed at all.’”
Gore sequel claim: Bad weather, floods, and other weather extremes are unprecedented
Reality Check: Gore is trying to scare the public into believing that they are one bad weather event away from doom and only EPA and the UN Paris climate pact (which his lobbying saved) can save us! Climate skeptic Jo Nova, called Gore’s claims akin to “primal weather-porn” after sitting through a 90-minute Gore presentation to promote his film. Novo wrote: “Gore’s only effort to scientifically connect those dots was to quote a few scientists opinions, while ignoring thousands of others, most historical accounts and 2 billion years of paleohistory. Cherry-picked extremes. The long tenuous chain of cause and effect was glossed over repeatedly with handwaving. The system was the most complex on earth, yet somehow scientists know what causes what. The chain of influence goes like this: fossil fuels make CO2, CO2 makes heat, heat causes droughts and more humidity, which in turn causes floods, intense rain, nastier storms, stickier roads, sliding mud, rising seas, etc etc blah-de-blah. Has there ever been a year on Earth when there wasn’t a drought somewhere and a flood somewhere else? This is a never-ending game for Gore. Until we get perfect weather on Earth, on all 150 million square kilometers terra firma, he will always be able to say “boo”.
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: Tropical diseases like Zika virus are spreading due to climate change – The Zika virus and other tropical diseases are spreading and will spread due to “global warming.” Gore’s film hypes the impact on pregnant women and their babies.
Reality Check: A 2016 study from The Australian National University found that tropical disease transmission of dengue and Zika suggests “transmission might decrease with greater warming.” “But now researchers are reporting that the incidence of the disease (and Zika as well) could actually be reduced with warming climate change.”
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.
The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s new best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Book excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change – Available at Amazon & Barnes & Noble & Walmart
The Ever-Receding Tipping Point
Eighteen-Sixty-Four Tipping Point Warns of “Climatic Excess”
“As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’” —MIT professor Leo Marx
New Lyrics to an Old Tune
Newsweek magazine weighed in with its own tipping point: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the
results become grim reality.” That warning appeared in an April 28, 1975, article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Earth “Serially Doomed”
Perhaps the best summary of the tipping-point phenomenon comes from UK scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed,” Stott explained. “Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter.
Comedians Penn & Teller explain how the tipping point works. Their segment on their TV show Bullshit! featuring global warming activist Ross Gelbspan is priceless: “Ross Gelbspan has asserted that ‘Unchecked, global warming will bankrupt the global economy by 2065.’” But Penn Jillette was having none of it: “Where did Gelbspan get that data, how did he choose that date of 2065? I will tell you how, this asshole figures he will be dead by then and not have to own up.”
In 2016, just after President Donald Trump’s election, New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter wrote an article featuring the headline “Earth Isn’t Doomed Yet. The Climate Could Survive Trump.”
It may be that the only authentic climate “tipping point” we can rely is this one, issued in 2007: New Zealand atmospheric scientist Augie Auer, former University of Wyoming professor of atmospheric science, said “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years.”
End book excerpt
Climate Depot’s Full Report on history of Climate “Tipping Points”
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!
According to the Boston Globe, the United Nations has issued a new climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming.
The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Once again, the world is being warned of an ecological or climate “tipping point” by the UN.
As early as 1982, the UN was issuing a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
In 1989, the UN was once again trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)
It’s all so confusing. In 2007, UN IPCC chief Pachauri declared 2012 as the climate deadline to act or it would be “too late.” See: Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change! — Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’
Not to be outdone by the UN, Former Irish President Mary Robinson weighed in this week, issuing a more generous 20 year tipping point. “Former president says we have 20 years to save the world from climate change effects…Robinson calls for climate agreement by 2015.” Robinson noted that global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world”.
Not to be left out, NASA got in the climate tipping point act in 2009. See: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’
But in 2012, the UN gave Obama and planet Earth another four year reprieve. See: Tipping points extended again: UN Foundation Pres. Warmist Tim Wirth: 2012 is Obama’s ‘last window of opportunity’ to get it right on climate change
Former Vice President Al Gore also created a 10 year climate tipping point in 2006: See: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer Mocks Gore for issuing 10-year tipping point in 2006: Al Gore’s 10-year climate warning – Only 2 years left & still no global warming – Spencer: ‘Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem’ – ‘In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not shaping up too well…still no statistically significant warming’
Then, Michael Mann weighed in with his 2036 Mayan calendar type deadline. See: 2036 is the new 2012?! UN Scientist Michael Mann starts his own Mayan Calendar deadline: ‘Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036′
Other global warming activists chose 2047 as the key date. See: Global warming activist scientists may not be the first to proclaim a doomsday year of 2047 as the end of time! — 2047 is the new 2012 — but global warming activists were beaten to Armageddon! — A Climate Depot analysis has uncovered that 2047 has long been seen as a successor to 2012 as an apocalyptic date.
Finding no date agreement, 20 governments chose 2030 as the scary deadline: See: Skeptics Repent! We are all doomed! Report: More than 100 million people will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate — Reuters: ‘More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of GDP by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global avg. temps rise due to ghg emissions, the effects on planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA’
The tipping point rhetoric seems to have exploded after 2002. See: Tipping Points In Env. Rhetoric: An Unscientific Survey of Nexis: After June 2002, news media’s use of tipping point in the context of global warming and climate change exploded’ — ‘Between June 2002 and June 2005 – CC: 262; GW: 303. Between June 2005 and June 2008 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: more than 3,000* Between June 2008 and June 2011 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: 2903 Between June 2011 and June 2012 – CC: 1,348; GW; 637 Of course, the problem with tipping points is that they can never be proven wrong; only right in retrospect. And that, of course, makes citing them a wonderful rhetorical device for doomsayers’
Perhaps the best explanation of tipping points comes from UK scientist Philip Stott.
See: UK Scientist Philip Stott ridiculed “tipping point” claims in 2007. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed. […] Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million [the 2007 population estimate is 302,824,000]. […] In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).”
Inconvenient History of Climate ‘Tipping Point’ Warnings
NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a “tipping point” for years now. See: Earth’s Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point – June 1, 2007 – Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today” by James Hansen.
Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.
Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.
Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists ‘expect climate tipping point’ by 2200 – UK Independent – June 28, 2010 – Excerpt: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more.”
‘World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office – UK Telegraph – November 15, 2009 — Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. […] “To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases.”
In 2013, the UN extended the deadline again. See: Earth Gets 15 Year Reprieve From Climate Doom?!: UN in 1989: World has a ’10-year window of opportunity to solve’ global warming — Now in 2013: ‘UN needs global warming answer by 2015′ – New date is the latest in a long history of flexible global warming deadlines
The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the “tipping point” in August 2009, when he warned of ‘incalculable’ suffering without climate deal in December 2009!
Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” But, Newsweek’s “tipping point” quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.
For an explanation of why climate fear promoters are failing to convince the public, see: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ – July 6, 2009]
More Related Links:
French Foreign Minister issues new tripping point: ’500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos’ – Laurent Fabius: ‘We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.’ – France is scheduled to host the “21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change” in December 2015, about 565 days from now.
Warmists Prep for UN Summit: ‘World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns’: ‘The world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change’ — ‘The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency…Every month now counts: if the world is to stay below 2C of warming’
UK greenie George Monbiot 2002 warned we only had 10 years! ‘Famine can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy’— Monbiot on December 24, 2002: ‘Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both’
1924: Top Scientists Say That Earth Is Doomed (April 16, 1924) – ‘It is the firmest conviction of a group of serious scientists of established reputation, who have devoted their lives to a dispassionate and careful examination of geological and astronomical evidence. This group includes such investigators as Dr. Max Valier, of Munich. Engineer Hanne Hoerbiger, of Vienna, Dr. Voigt, of Berlin; and Professor F. Queisser. of Prague’
Gore Losing: No cause for alarm at 5-year mid-point of Armstrong-Gore climate ‘bet’ — ‘Gore should be pleased to find concerns about a ‘tipping point’ have turned out to be unfounded’ – ‘The latest global temperature is exactly where it was at the beginning of the ‘bet’ — ‘The IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles’
Doomster Paul Ehrlich is back and just as wrong as ever! Remember when we all starved to death in the 1980s, just as I predicted? It might happen AGAIN! – Ehrlich: ‘We risk a global collapse of our civilization as we know it. Climate change is just one of our problems. We cannot avert calamity without tackling it and other pressing ecological concerns’
Forty Year Cycle Of Scientific Psychosis Discovered: ‘There appears to be a forty year cycle of mental illness in the scientific community’ — ‘This is what they were saying in 1970’: ‘Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind; — George Wald, Harvard Biologist — ‘We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.’ — Barry Commoner, Wash. U biologist’
MIT to Obama: Only 4 years left to stop global warming: ‘It is quite possible that if this is not done over the next four years, it will be too late’ — MIT to Obama: ‘We can no longer pretend that addressing climate change will be without real costs’ — ‘You have the power and the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a new clean-energy policy that will help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” said the letter, published in the MITTechnology Review’
Flashback 2007: Climatologist Dr. Michaels mocks ‘tipping points’: ‘We have to do something in 10 years — they have been saying that for two years. Why don’t they at least subtract 2 and make it 8?’
Another Atmospheric Scientist Dissents: Calls fears of CO2 tipping point ‘alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation’ – July 13, 2009 – ‘Over geologic time there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations’
Antarctic Tipping Point? ‘If we don’t act soon, the planet will become a barren ball of ice and snow’ – October 2, 2009 – ‘5 of the 6 years with the greatest Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent have occurred in just the last decade’
Climate Depot’s Morano on new alarmist National Academy of Sciences’ climate ‘tipping point’ study: It ‘openly shills for more climate funding for its members’ — Morano: ‘The organization [NAS] is virtually 100% dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this – and they’ve done other studies in the past – you know the outcome of these studies before they do them. The actual funding quote from new study is: ‘The sudden changes in the climate is full of uncertainties. The world can prepare by better monitoring,’ Morano offers. ‘And it goes on [to say that] because of budget cuts and aging satellites, we have fewer measurements than we did a few years ago.’ – ‘When the NAS is advocating for a carbon tax, it’s not too surprising that all [their] reports are going to fall in line.’
Former Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore calls NAS ‘tipping point’ study ‘pure junk’: ‘Low point for US National Academy of Science. Warns of ‘tipping points’ in climate like ‘drunk drivers’
Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’
Wash Times Features Climate Depot: ‘The global-warming apocalypses that didn’t happen’ – ‘You can find most of these and many more quotes on the Climate Depot website, collected by Marc Morano, illustrating how little the experts really know about climate change.’