Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction

Environmental Economist Bjorn Lomborg on Al Gore’s prediction that 75 percent of the Arctic’s ice will be gone due to global warming.
Video Rating: / 5

Catalyst: Global Warming Pause – Investigating why global air surface temperatures appear to have slowed warming, despite claims the Earth is heating up.

Subscribe to Journeyman for daily Science and Current affairs: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=journeymanpictures
Go to the Journeyman Science playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlGSlkijht5iXbPX7d_oTP47c9C3kArQ0

From 1975 to 1998 the world saw a rapid rise of global average air surface temperatures, linked to increasing greenhouse gas emission. But for the last 16 years the rate of rise has slowed dramatically, leading sceptics to question the predictions we often hear about climate change catastrophe. With conflicting evidence and claims, what can we believe about the future of our earth’s climate? Anja Taylor speaks to climatologists about the limitations of our global temperature studies, and investigates the veracity behind the claims that we may be experiencing a ‘global warming pause.’

ABC Australia – Ref 6284

Journeyman Pictures brings you highlights from the cutting-edge science series, ‘Catalyst’, produced by our long-term content partners at ABC Australia. Every day we’ll upload a new episode that takes you to the heart of the most intriguing and relevant science-related stories of the day, transforming your perspective of the issues shaping our world.
Video Rating: / 5

40 thoughts on “Gore gets slammed over false global warming prediction”

  1. Al Gore & Mike Moore, & Hollywood friends, have Beachfront homes. WhY? If underwater by2011. They know it’s B.S. or too Rich..plus, scientist NEED Research Funds. Recycle companies thrive on junk mail & Evian.

    Reply
  2. Climate change IS real, the climate has always changed since earth came into existence(talk about covering your arse) BUT is global warming real? I think you should add significant to that question and then its debatable. Since i was born(1949) winters are not so severe (in the UK that is) but summers are not so hot or long, so in 68 years(in the UK) i would say yes a little warming in the winter months but not in the summer, so i would class that as NOT significant. I predict little significant change in the next 68 yrs using the last 68 as a gauge. I could be wrong after all i'm just an average you tube viewer and all i have behind me is yrs of experience but no PHD or other such qualifications. I do know (according to ice cores) that CO2 was 10 times more than it is now, and in the middle of an ice age not an inter-glacial period like we are experiencing now. I also know that more CO2 equals bigger yields from crops and the reduction in desertification also those high CO2 levels in the past DIDN'T cause runaway greenhouse effects, infact CO2 rises follow temperature rises (by sometimes 1000's of years). So if Temp rise comes first how can CO2 be the cause. If you investigate sea level rise you will find that the rise is almost identical in the last 100 yrs to the previous 100 yrs. If the climate is changing(significantly) i think they need to look beyond the CO2 hypothesis and maybe sulfur or even methane would be a better candidate or dare i say it(shock horror) the sun or even the earths core itself, not fashionable i know(but what care i for fashion) but all the heat that this planet gets is either from the sun or to a much lesser extent the earths core so as neither of them are a constant maybe they have some small part to play. None of this effects me really although i obviously care for the sake of future generations, but seriously do you really think tax's are the answer, that is a politicians way of dealing with anything/everything and another thing i have learnt over the years is that politicians rarely do things to benefit the people, they are usually too busy with their own careers or bank balances. Thanks for your patience in reading my insignificant thoughts.

    Reply
  3. Al gore is a scam artist. The only reason a melting off is because of the super volcanos under Antarctica are heating up and want to blow. It is nothing but a scam to try and tax you more.

    Reply
  4. If it were not for climate change , we would all be living on a frozen planet . How about living in rusting oceans for 100 Million years . I love global warming 😛

    Reply
  5. It's a FUCKING stupid thing to say that "climate change is real" Climate change has been real….since there was climate…through out the FUCKING UNIVERSE…….assholes.

    Reply
  6. Check out who came Up with the idea to name it "Fossile fuel". Peak oil. Rockefeller and the banksters. Its a natural resource. Like Water, and air.

    Reply
  7. A simple way to solve global warming: Kill all the cows…have a month without gas vehicles….and lastly lets have one day a week that no one breaths, or talks….man talk about cooling the earth! Why just the cooling power of no one talking in Washington would bring down the temperature by many degrees. Come to think of it ….If Al Gore would just STFU

    Reply
  8. Gore did not predict ice would vanish. He cited estimates from actual scientists which were more aggressive than others. The studies stated sea ice could vanish in the summer. Not that the arctic would be entirely ice free year round.

    Reply
  9. The Paris Agreement's official pronouncement is all about global temperature reduction. Nothing is said about reducing carbon emission. Why didn't it come out and say "reduce carbon emission by …such and such"?

    Reply
  10. Rick Daly says ; Big Housing Developers are still getting their Permits , that means millions more cars on the roads ! Oh well , cant stop Growth or Progress ? So they'll go after us for Carbon Tax anyway and let the Subdivisions be built !

    Reply
  11. Thank you! This video is the first that I've seen to summarize the link between the 'cold' phase in the PDO to the recent 'hiatus', and the 'warm' PDO phase to the global warming roughly between 1975 and 2005; and the response of clouds to both. This NEEDS to be understood by deniers and believers alike! Around 2035 the PDO will shift into a 'warm' phase again and global warming will be more dire than ever! Yes, most of the climate change has been natural over the last century, but that doesn't mean we're okay or that CO2 is doing nothing. It means the opposite.

    Reply
  12. Climate scientists have lost all credibility – as evidence by no one predicting the hiatus.

    The Earth is far more complex than their climate models.

    Reply
  13. The scientific method must be studied by people such as believe  this,—then restudy the greater world not just selected bits. And take notice that the super rick are promoting the world without better living standards  for working class, and the desperate people.

    Reply
  14. Why did the pacific Ocean decide to start absorbing more heat post 2000? I don't buy this stuff. Also why did the global average temps decrease from 1940-70 when C02 was going up rapidly?

    Reply
  15. Seriously this guy is a scientist and states he has good reason that some of this heat that's being absorbed in the ocean is where the energy is going.Ok plausible.Science is observing and ' measuring' the environment its studying…good.and what the fucking article forgets to research ,like many of these poorly pieced together dumbumentaries, is how long have we had those hitec devices in the ocean measuring temperature and sea level oh that's right 25 years at best before that couple of hundred strategically placed Bouys around the world at varying depths mmmmm.So we can scientifically say we have eliminated all known variables that would support the oceans are going to release or keep absorbing energy and base this hypothesis to then underpin this 'pause'in global warming'.Thats it wow..volcanoes erupted …that seemed inconvenient and wasn't effectively added to the climate model.Sweet Jesus volcanoes. Will always go off .How can we take science seriously ….

    Reply
  16. Some of the comments here….
    Fine if you don't believe in climate change but then at least be sustainable as to reduce pollution. 
    Don't do it for the climate change then, do it for the sake of your children and grandchildren's lungs.

    Reply
  17. My first observation would be, if climate models were accurate, then all that is proposed here should have been known, and in the models.  But they aren't.  We get global climate warming, and a stream of regional and now oceanic excuses. 

    Second, coming out of an ice age, the oscillations would be expected on an upward trend, until the start of the next Ice Age. 

    Third, we have the ARGO buoy system.  Clips were shown of buoys being put into the ocean, but the data from them was not shown.  The only ocean warming is at 700 m at the limit of buoy depth, and that is on the scale of 0.03 C on average.  But what is the resolution of those buoys.?  You cannot find it online.  Let me presume about 0.1C based on the use of thermocouple technology.  So a change is being reported as warming ten times below the instrument accuracy.  Averaging lots of buoys is not justification for higher resolution reporting.  To instrument accuracy, the ocean is not warming.

    Fourth, the conclusion is that ocean circulation drives climate and CO2 tags along.  It has been proposed that these ocean oscillations come from seafloor volcanic eruptions off the shore of Costa Rica on the Nazca plate boundary, warming the ocean periodically.  If so, global climate is run by sea floor volcanism, not mentioned in this documentary.  That plate region sits right on the prevailing easterly circulation latitude to project changes there across the entire Pacific.

    Fifth, as the models have overpredicted warming, the idea keeps being floated that more aerosols from combustion have to be the cause of cooling, and the models have their aerosol effect constantly kicked up.  No, fundamentally the models just don't work.

    And lastly, the production of clouds and rainfall, absorbs and releases a great amount of atmospheric heat, and clouds trap outgoing radiation.  We have no worldwide monitoring of this, no way to model it, and at the same time, the models are flops.  This may not be coincidence.  So the pretense that atmospheric climate has been all worked out is the basic fallacy that others are responding to.

    We don't have any atmospheric climate models at all.  We have a set of physics equations and compilation of them to retrofit to historical temperature data.  Since they model nothing in the real world, as we project them forward, their errors must increase, which is what we observe.  Data retrofits only work for the period of temperature they were forced to fit, and nothing more.

    Reply
  18. all alarmist climate scientists are like the characters in that kids movie monsters inc.trying to scare us into action and when I mean action I mean pay higher energy costs and higher taxes that is really going to save the fucking planet and when that climate scientist said his emails were hacked that's bullshit they were disclosed by one of their own climate researches because he was disgusted at the level of fraud and unethical behaviour going on.  

    Reply

Leave a Comment

twenty + twenty =