On The Big Story, Cato Institute fellow falsely asserted that IPCC findings contradict Gore's "beyond shrill" claim
SUMMARY: Patrick Michaels falsely compared Al
Gore's claim that global warming could cause "sea level worldwide
[to] go up 20 feet" with
a portion of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report that predicted a sea-level increase of 8 to
18 inches. In fact, the IPCC report made that estimate based only on increases in
temperature, while Gore was
discussing what would occur if vast sections of polar ice "broke
up and slipped into the sea."
On the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels repeated a false comparison between former Vice President Al Gore's claim that global warming could cause "sea level worldwide [to] go up 20 feet" with a section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which, in the scenario Michaels cites, says sea levels would rise about 8 to 18 inches by the end of the 21st century. But as Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), Gore was specifically addressing what could happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome "broke up and slipped into the sea." The portion of the IPCC report that Michaels cited referred only to projected sea-level increases based on increases in temperature.
Michaels used this false comparison as the basis for characterizing Gore's position as "beyond shrill" and "thermonuclear."
In the film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), Gore actually stated:
GORE: If [the West Antarctic ice shelf] were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of the ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that's roughly the same size -- Greenland would also raise sea level almost 20 feet if it went.
In fact, the IPCC report supports Gore's position. It states that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet.
Furthermore, a February 2 New York Times article stated:
Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Muych [sic] of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.
The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.
From the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Ouch! Not the warmest reception for Gore, who is back at his old stomping grounds for the first time since 2001. So, since he's taking the heat, why not be in the kitchen? Is Al Gore ready to give up the Oscar crowd and the rock-star status and jump into the political ring with a possible run in '08?
With me now, Patrick Michaels, senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute, and Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico.com. Patrick, let me go to you first. Al Gore made his global-warming pitch today. Was he persuasive?
We have, actually, a question about it. The "Goracle" speaks. Planet fever or P.R. fever? What was he doing today?
MICHAELS: Well, I like his statement that what he said might be a little shrill, when he said that this threatens the very survival of our civilization. That's almost like thermonuclear language, you know?
Thermonuclear war might threaten the survival of our civilization, but warming up the planet another degree? I think not. And, also, this notion that he is in great agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, no. The IPCC says sea levels would rise about 8 to 18 inches under their median scenario for the 21st century. And he's talking about 20 feet? No.
This was way over the top. This was beyond shrill. This was thermonuclear.
Cato institute, I never met a libertarian I liked. Aw geez the sea levels would only raise 8-18"...Does this moron comprehend the impact even that amount would have!! Oh that's right he's from the Cato institute of course he's a moron.
I wouldn't worry about. The global warming alarmist said last year would be a record hurricane year, yet it was below average. They can't predict hurricanes let alone the oceans rising by a foot.
Leatherhelmet, quick suggestion for you. Look up the words "climate" and "weather." At least, try out the idea that they are not the same thing.
I got no problem with you making yourself look stupid on this site day after day, if that's how you want to spend your time. Free country.
don't bother answering, it is just a bot triggered whenever key names appear. it never comes back to reply when facts are presented.
leather makes it up again, hit and run with the same stale points. no one predicted that the 2006 season would exceed the 2005 season, which was the first time the entire name list was used. there were not the number of storms predicted, but it was an "el nino" year, which occur with no precise timing. but even for an el nino year, it was busier than usual. from atmos.uicu.edu: averages for an el nino year, named storms-7.1, hurricanes-4, intense hurricanes-1.5. last year, 10 named, 5 hurricanes and 2 intense. there was also a very active season in the pacific with multiple powerful storms hitting china, the philippines, australia, and vietnam. not that it makes any difference with leather, he'll post the same thing next time and the time after that and.....
The Cato Institute, the same people who fund the lie-bertarian tirades of Penn and Teller, are naturally the darlings of the corporate media. And, naturally, they're bringing in these high-class corporate hookers to shill for the denialist mindset.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
I didn't know who funded that show. Good info, that's interesting. The show is fairly interesting at times. I did catch one error in their anti-recycling show. They brought up the crying Indian commercial (he was actually an Italian guy) but he was campaigning against litter, not promoting recycling.
"[The Crying Indian PSA] was campaigning against litter, not promoting recycling." --LH
More precisely, he was campaigning against pollution:
"People Start Pollution, People Can Stop It"
You are right, though, it wasn't a pro-recycling PSA.
The waters won't rise and the levees didn't fail...oh, er, no one knew the levees would fail...and one day CATO will be saying, no one knew the waters would rise...
One would expect lawyers to welcome calamities. Then you can sue everyone plus John Does 1-20.
Y'are a law-yer, aren't you?
And how, exactly, does blaming it all on lawyers, alter the facts that we teeter on the brink of destruction of this so-called civilization by our own greed and denial?
Oh - it doesn't?
Hey, if you can't make a decent argument, attack the other guy. That trick was old when Noah was in short pants...
I watched Gore. Calm, composed, polite to a fault with the idiotic former chair whose name I can't bring myself to use. Absolutely presidential in his appearance from beginning to end.
Gee I didn't realize a rise of 8-18" would not have a negative impact on our coastline, where people and industry live. I guess when the water rises the land must rise too, so they offset.
I think Cato is also working on a study that Global Warming is easily stopped by increasing our pollution, which then blocks out the rays of the sun. In addition, they are offering a bumper sticker that says: "Pollute to Save the Earth Now!". I think Rush is promoting the bumper sticker on his program tomorrow. For an unspecified extra charge you can get one autographed by him. Is that cool or what. Really can anyone not claim that conservatives are the true stewards of our environment?
<end sicko sarcasm>
Man, do any of these dyckheads take pride in what they do???
It really reminds me of the days when the Tobacco barons swore up and down that smoking had no ill effects on one's health.
C'mon, that was a side show. Do you actually know anybody that beleived them, or anybody that didn't know smoking was serious self-flagellation?
I am sure this will be the con argument in generations to come. "C'mon, everybody knew the oil companies were just paying tame scientists off." You don't think anybody believed the sun was just hotter, do you?"
Not really the point. The execs were blatantly misleading people.
What is amazing is that these guys don't realize how much higher sea level has been than it is today. http://www.answers.com/topic/phanerozoic-sea-level-png
IPCC estimates could easily be low by a factor of 5. When you have a group estimate it is usually on the conservative/low side.
I know there's no more doubt about the conservative bias of the media, but consider:
The refutation of this accusation is ridiculously simple. It's one sentence and very easy for anyone to understand. So why will we never, ever hear that one sentence at any time anywhere throughout the mainstream media?
Consider it my own personal lack of insight, but what's the sentence?
What's the accusation?
The accusation: Gore is saying the oceans will rise 20 feet when the IPCC says only 23 inches.
The sentence: Gore was referring to a scenario where the Greenland or Antarctic ice shelf broke off, which the IPCC estimate explicitly excluded.
You heard it here first, because you most certainly did not hear it anywhere in the media.
apples to oranges.
Twenty feet? But, nobody could believe that's even possible under any circumstances, that's just silly. Wesley cited the IPCC report and...
Oh, right. :)
I don't know it either. There may be some industrial types who working on solutions. One of the last Al Frankin show's had someone from Serial (something or other) saying his group was going to put 3 Trillion into alternative energy and better efficiencies on what we use today. I'm far from relieved, institutional creativity may be an oxymoron. Saying we're trying to find solutions is at least a step up from outright denial.
- Greenland would also raise sea level almost 20 feet if it went. - algore
- "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet - IPCC
Millennia? So in 1000 years Greenland "might" melt...and in 1000 years frogs might have wings that keep them from bumping their asses.
No pledge algore is a shill...what a laugh.
Millinnia not millinnium, so more than 2000 years actually.
Gore made much more detail than what you are saying. Ice reflects sun and reduces warming, whereas the land or sea that would be uncovered absorbs heat. Therefore ice melts are not necessarliy linear contributors to warming and melts may be accelerated due to this feedback loop.
I don't know how likely this scenario is --and that is a key element here, but the argument appears to be quite scientifically possible at this point in our knowledge.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Global+Warming+and+swindle&hl=en
The IPCC is a bunch of crap. They use scientist's names w/ out permission and their data is edited and wrong.
Full Disclosure - LDoren is "Nambla Buddies" with one of the producers of this video, and gets a free "pony ride" for every time he links it.
Ans that is just as factual as the video.
I'm sorry, saying that I'm part of Nambla is unacceptable.
Please take down your post or I'll ask MMFA to take it down.
I clearly posted that my statement was as factual as your video.I don't feel embarrassed by your video, and will not flag it. Do what you want with my post.
I think you touched a nerve there, HBL.
Why is Ldoren1626 so worried that someone might think he's a member of NAMBLA, " The National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes"?
This is civil debate. The video I posted is legit. No person on the video was paid by any oil company. They are all well-know scientists. It was shown on Britain's equivalent of ABC/CBS/NBC.
Attack specifics of the video's message if you want to comment, attacking me or people in the video is unacceptable.
Why should I give up one hour thirteen minutes and thirty two seconds of my life because you want me to watch something?
Yes, and apparently, the director is a very active communist and a libertarian as well. His objectivity has apparently been called into question.
What a surprise.
While he may be a libertarian, he's no communist. The Wik. article is wrong. Watch the video. It is very well done.
And your evidence they are wrong is WHAT? Oh it doesnt exist? Imagine my suprise.
How about because you CAN'T be a libertarian and Communist at the same time.
How do you advocate both absolute Free Market capitalism and absolute Socialism?? You have to pick one. And if you watch the video, he criticized communists. So by default....
I am not sure if your problem is one of reading comprehension or if you are changing your argument, here is the claim YOU said was wrong
He is understood to have once been closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and its later offshoots Living Marxism <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I assume you have a basic understanding of PAST TENSE right? Now since many people move from the far left to the far right like Weiner, Whorowitz and the like its clearly not impossible. Now I ask again your evidence that they are wrong is WHAT?
"...Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.
They felt passionately that the Green Movement was a deeply reactionary form of Western imperialism, which put improvement through science and industry of the welfare of people in Africa and the Asian subcontinent below its own decadent obsessions with biodiversity and so-called "sustainable development".
A similar theme pervades The Great Global Warming Swindle. We are taken to those vast tracts of Africa where there is no electricity, and see families huddled round a fire in their mud hut. Then we are told that "five million children under five die every year as a result of respiratory diseases from indoor smoke". Remember that, the next time you read about the ecological purity of heating derived from "biomass". Next we are taken to some godforsaken health centre in the Kenyan hinterland, struggling to get by with electricity from a dilapidated but undeniably politically correct solar panel. It just about manages to keep alive the fridge with the medicine inside." --source
Kind of ironic how communist propaganda worked its way into that documentary and is then propagated by the extreme right around the world. Good job fighting those Western Imperialist pigs, comrade!
The largest Global Warming study ever done, an actual scientific STUDY is crap but your partisan video done by a guy with a HISTORY of nonsense videos is the unvarnished truth? Please tell me you are kidding.