Al Gore, the global-warming entrepreneur who has made hundreds of millions of dollars since he was vice president under Bill Clinton, is rewriting history in his newest movie, a sequel to his 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The original movie wasn’t without controversy, as a judge in the United Kingdom said it could be shown in the nation’s schools only if schools alert students to nine statements “that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus.”
Now that the promotions for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” have begun, critics have found yet another misstatement by Gore.
According to the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters, it’s when Gore talks about the flooding caused by Superstorm Sandy at the site of the Twin Towers memorial in New York City.
Gore claims its a fulfillment of his prediction in his original movie that a rise in the ocean level would contribute to flooding at the site.
But that isn’t what happened.
In his 2006 film, he said, illustrated by an animation, “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.”
Then he showed animations of what he believed would happen to San Francisco, the Netherlands, Beijing and other places.
Turning to Manhattan, he said, “This is what would happen to Manhattan; they can measure this precisely.”
The animation shows water reaching the 9/11 memorial.
But Newsbusters argued Gore has twisted his original words to make it appear his prediction about Manhattan came true.
In a newly released clip from the movie, he says: “Ten years ago when the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 9/11 memorial site, which was then under construction. And people said, ‘That’s ridiculous. What a terrible exaggeration.'”
The movie then shows news footage of Superstorm Sandy water reaching the memorial site.
See Al Gore:
Newsbusters pointed out the original prediction “was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any ‘storm surge’ at all.”
“It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.”
The report noted the latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt.
Even scientists dispute Gore’s contention that Superstorm Sandy was the product of “manmade climate change.”
Newsbusters noted the Washington Post admitted, “Climate change does not cause storms and did not cause Superstorm Sandy.”
There were other claims by Gore that have failed to reach fulfillment.
He told an audience in 2009, for example, that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
He also predicted increasing temperatures would cause Earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.
See those claims:
The new movie promotion says: “Cameras follow him behind the scenes – in moments both private and public, funny and poignant – as he pursues the inspirational idea that while the stakes have never been higher, the perils of climate change can be overcome with human ingenuity and passion.”
Gore’s promotion of “global warming” also has drawn the criticism of a prominent scientist:
According to a report at Climate Depot, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, former chairman of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he was “appalled” at Gore’s work, citing either Gore’s lack of understanding or knowing misrepresentation.
“It was irresponsible of Al Gore,” he said.
That someone should want to be in the middle of the “global warming” argument is fully justified, when one considers the world community is estimated to be looking at spending of $100 trillion before the end of the century on reducing the world’s temperature.
That’s enough to make 100 million people millionaires.
And that spending will generate a temperature reduction of a “grand total of three tenths of one degree,” according to Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, reports Climate Depot.
Lomborg states: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years.”
He explained the calculation is based on the U.N.’s own climate prediction model.
The total is bigger than the world’s gross domestic product.
He warned that if the U.S. “delivers for the whole century on … President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
“But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free – quite the contrary,” Lomborg said. “The cost of the U.N. Paris climate pact is like to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”
That’s compared to the U.S. annual budget of under $4 trillion.
Here’s a video with Lomborg’s full analysis and commentary:
Climate Change publisher Marc Morano reported the evaluation was provided as part of Lomborg’s criticism of the recent Paris Climate Agreement, which was much ballyhooed by the Obama administration as a major step forward.
Lomborg produced a video titled “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate” for talk-radio host Dennis Prager’s PragerU.
He poked fun at the Paris result as “grand pronouncements and vague specifics,” and said the folks in Paris, France, could learn a thing or two from those in Paris, Texas.
“Using the same prediction model that the U.N. uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just .023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.
“In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century,” Lomborg said.
WND has reported much of the information on which global warming projections are based is simply wrong.
Morano of Climate Depot warned the intent now is not to discuss, investigate or research, but to send “a chilling message to doubters and skeptics” to be silent.
Morano said his movie, “Climate Hustle,” shows “the climate establishment comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers.”
“It’s all an attempt to silence the debate, to silence any science and go right to centralized planning,” he said. “That’s what this is all about. The U.N. has admitted their goal is wealth redistribution and it doesn’t have anything to do with environmental policy.”
The solution offered by the climate establishment, he said, is always the same: “more centralized government.”
He said the result will be tragic for large populations who are being denied access to pumped water, power and heat because of antagonism to carbon-based fuels.
“The reason we know there’s a hustle is their predictions have failed to come true, on a whole host of issues,” Morano said. “That’s why they now want to stop the debate, suppress debate.”
Another famous prediction came from a 2013 column by Mark Hertsgaard, which was headlined “The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015.”
He wrote: “Say goodbye to polar bears and a whole lot of ice. New research suggests the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2015, with devastating consequences for the world. Can it be stopped?”
Taking one more step back in time, the BBC said Arctic summers would be ice-free by 2013.
Sierra Club Canada also said in 2013 that the Arctic sea ice would vanish that year.
Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, said global temperatures have been dropping since the turn of the century, prompting the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change.”
Activists are also spending less time discussing temperatures and more time pointing to more extreme events such as tornadoes, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Ball said there’s a shred of truth there, but it’s being badly distorted.
“Yes, there’s been slightly more extremes,” he said in an interview with WND and Radio America. “That’s because the jet stream patterns are changing, because the earth is cooling down. All the arguments about sea-level rise, about Arctic ice disappearing, if you recall it’s not that long ago that our friend Al Gore was saying that there would be no summer ice in the Arctic. I think the year he set for it was 2014. That proved to be completely wrong.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Tim Ball:
At the Ron Paul Liberty Report, Chris Rossini said the “alarmism” about “climate change” is reaching “levels of desperation.”
“The arguments go from ridiculous to hysterical. We’re told by many politicians that ‘climate change’ is the #1 threat to Americans. This is of course a favorite of the swindling class. Others tell us that the #1 threat is ISIS, and some are now saying that it’s Donald Trump. Some say it’s North Korea, Russia, or Iran. The carousel of #1 threats is always in motion.”
Rossini continued: “In the media, you’ll find stories that free birth control is needed in order to battle climate change, and that climate change will turn women into prostitutes. Non-believers of this ridiculous propaganda are branded as ‘deniers.’
“Even appeals to religion and the afterlife have been showered on Americans. Whether it be comments from the pope, or from Nobel Prize winning ‘economist’ Paul Krugman, who says: ‘You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so – this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin).'”
Rossini wrote, “Boy, do these characters really want Americans to believe the climate change religion.”
Scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which has gathered the signatures of at least 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California-San Diego, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. His son, Noah Robinson, was a key figure in the petition work and has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Caltech.
Many advocates have declared that it’s heresy not to agree that man is the cause of cataclysmic climate change. Some attorneys general, for example, have banded together to target any companies that challenge the climate “consensus.”
When the Daily Caller reported the story it cited the Spanish Inquisition, which “systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s.”
WND also reported when some two-dozen scientists with major U.S. universities urged President Obama to use racketeering laws to prosecute opponents who deny mankind is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.
In a letter addressed to Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, the scientists said they “appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”
“One additional tool – recently proposed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,” they wrote, according to Politico.
See the Climate Hustle movie trailer: