Al Gore and wife Tipper to separate


From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Former US vice president and anti-global warming campaigner Al Gore and his wife Tipper have told friends that they will separate after four decades of marriage, an aide said Tuesday.

“They’ve asked for privacy during this time, for them and their family,” said Kalee Kreider, of the Office of Al and Tipper Gore.

Kreider confirmed that the Gores — whose affection for each other was evident at social gatherings in Washington for 40 years, notably during his failed 2000 White House run — had let friends know of their plans by email.

“We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate,” they said in the message, first reported by the online publication Politico.

“This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family, and we do not intend to comment further,” they said.

Read it here.

UPDATED: When the going gets desperate…

Clearly stressed by so much climate spin…

Clearly stressed by so much climate spin…

… the desperate get going. In this case, Al Gore, who is wheeled out like some old relic to peddle more meaningless alarmism based on hopeless computer models to the gullible twits at Copenhagen:

Gore cited new scientific work at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, whose Arctic ice research is important for planning polar voyages by Navy submarines. The computer modeling there stresses the “volumetric,” looking not just at the surface extent of ice but its thickness as well.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations. [“Some” of the models? So I guess “others” didn’t – guess which ones Al chooses – Ed]

Asked for comment, one U.S. government scientist questioned what he called this “aggressive” projection.

“It’s possible but not likely,” said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “We’re sticking with 2030.”

Even the US government is embarrassed by Gore’s wild predictions. And anyway, what’s the big deal about Arctic ice anyway? If the planet is warming, there’ll be less ice – it doesn’t prove human causation. Gore sounds like Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun: “There’s a 50:50 chance of no ice in 5 years, but there’s only a 10% chance of that.”

Read it here.

Update: The Times picks up Gore’s error, and as Marc Morano says, Gore is no longer getting a “free ride” from the media:

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.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.


Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.


Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

OMG! Al Gore writes climate poem

Failed politician writes dire poem about climate change = front page news. Try not to puke when you read the Goracle’s attempts at literature:

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (source)

The debate is over: Al Gore is a freaking awful poet.

Even James Hansen wants Copenhagen to fail

Hansen (L), Homer (R)

Hansen (L), Homer (R)

And with Al Gore pulling out of a $1,200-a-head presentation, things aren’t looking that hot:

The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week’s Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.

James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist [Ha, ha! My aching sides – Ed], says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

His words came on the same day as the University of East Anglia announced an investigation into the thousands of damaging leaked emails emanating from its Climatic Research Unit.

Professor Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit in New York. In 1989 he made several appearances before Congress and did more than any other scientist to educate [“brainwash” – Ed] politicians about the causes of global warming and the urgent need to change behaviour.

Earlier this year, he was awarded the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by the American Meteorological Society. It was awarded for his outstanding contribution to climate modelling and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena. [The ABC is in full hyperbole mode here, as you can see – Ed]

He certainly was not mincing his words when he gave his views to the Guardian newspaper online about the prospects for next week’s climate change conference.

“The approach that’s being talked about is so fundamentally wrong that it’s better to reassess the situation,” he said.

“I think it’s just as well that we not have a substantive treaty.”

Advice to Copenhagen delegates. Save the airfare, save the CO2, stay at home instead.

Read it here.

Why are we sceptics? Because we're MENTALLY DERANGED!

ABC bias incarnate

ABC bias incarnate

Yes, and if you challenge me on that I will split your skull in two with this axe.

But that’s the level of debate on Margot O’Neill’s execrable blog “Countdown to Copenhagen“. She just can’t get her tiny brain around why people are deserting the climate change bandwagon in droves. She just can’t understand that people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors of Al Gore, so she, along with all the other alarmist fruitcakes, have to think of another reason. We’re all mentally unbalanced. We’ve been here before, of course, but here’s the ABC, our national broadcaster, peddling it as fact:

CSIRO’s former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:

“Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed.

Mr Gore says he conducted 30 “solutions summits” with leading international experts to discuss how to design the multi-faceted battle plan in his book. They included brain scientists who told him the climate threat seemed too remote and unprecedented to trigger survival reflexes. In short, primordial human wiring is tuned to the likes of carnivorous predators, lightning strikes and blood-curdling rival clansmen.

Harvard University’s Daniel Gilbert has provided a sharply amusing account of how global warming challenges our evolutionary psychology – if it doesn’t make us duck or twitch or even feel repulsed, can it really be so bad?

Behavioural scientists also told him that “Simply laying out the facts won’t work … The barrage of negative, even terrifying, information can trigger denial or paralysis or, at the very least, procrastination.” Sounds like a bad rap for his Academy Award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, which helped raise global awareness of the issue.

But scientists told Mr Gore that the human brain can commit to multigenerational goals although this can be undermined by constant stress and excessive distraction, both of which abound in modern society.

In other words, don’t bother with the climate, just focus on using psychiatry to brain-train everyone to believe unquestioningly in the holy and immutable word of Al God.

Read it here (if you must)

The Age kisses Gore's backside

Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

To the editors of The Age and all the other Fairfax media outlets, Al Gore is a brave warrior for the planet, courageously flying all over the world by private jet in order to make more money out of an imagined climate crisis. I beg to differ – the man peddles misinformation and refuses to debate, in other words, he’s a snake oil salesman.

But that doesn’t stop The Age, who put together a sycophantic, fawning piece about Big Al’s new book, Our Choice: A Plan to solve the Climate Crisis. That there is a “climate crisis” is a given, of course, since Gore put the tick in the “science is settled” box by way of An Inconvenient Truth, if you ignore the nine fundamental errors and the scores of other misrepresentations. So this one is all about solutions.

Gore’s new book, the result of more than two years of consultations with leading scientists, technologists, economists and, yes, neuroscientists, is his attempt to lay out a detailed solution to the climate crisis [and line his pockets at the same time – Ed]. It is an attempt to spell out in a way that ordinary readers can understand the current state of technology and what still needs to be invented to bring a low-carbon world to reality.

There are passages where it becomes a little dense, but for the most part it is a worthy sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, full of optimism about the promise of science to solve this urgent crisis — although perhaps it skims over the possible changes that we all might need to make to our lifestyles.

While it explores all technologies from nuclear to “clean coal”, the book leans heavily towards the renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, arguing that the economics of nuclear and the uncertain viability of carbon capture and storage make them less viable.

Maybe Gore could set the example by running his mansion (and his three monitors), which consumes about as much electricity as all of sub-Saharan Africa put together, on sunbeams and wind power, as he suggests for the rest of us.

Read it here.

The price of inconvenient reality

In an editorial today, The Australian asks some very awkward questions about the economic realities of the ETS, and the global socialism that climate change is advancing:

BOTH domestically and internationally, the price that could be demanded from Australians for our part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is emerging from a sea of red ink. Earlier estimates suggested that an emissions trading scheme would reap a profit of between $11 billion and $20bn by 2020. Now we learn from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the scheme is likely to lose money over the next five years. The second reality check was the European Union’s call for industrialised nations to contribute $160bn per annum by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change.

The shortfall in ETS revenue makes the prospect of a deal between the Rudd government and the Coalition less likely. It will be impossible to pay for Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed amendments to Labor’s ETS from funds generated through emission permit sales. A fortnight ago, an analysis by Riskmetrics and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors gave an idea of what the Coalition amendments could cost. It found that the amendments could turn an estimated $777 million net surplus in its first year into a $1.8bn deficit.

After years of inflated expectations of what can be achieved in curbing carbon, it is clear that any deal that would make an appreciable difference in emissions levels will be costly. As a responsible global citizen, Australia should play its part. But we have no obligation to join any push to use climate change to redistribute global wealth to assuage the consciences of climate change billionaire Al Gore and social campaigners such as Bono, whose carbon footprints far exceed those of the ordinary Australian taxpayers they expect to foot the bill.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: