Just see all the warped minds attempting to make us not believe he didn't say such things. Ha! Ha! They must be upset, for they changed the category on you. (I believe this was originally in GW and they put it in politics. I changed it back.) The Greenies get upset easily.
Well peer reviewed is a substitute for experiments that can be replicated which is what hard science requires. It is a poor substitute. Consensus is another term for this substitution. Now the models work poorly because the system is very complex, not well understood, and global experiments are not possible and if they would be very dangerous. Al Gore is a political person and knows almost nothing about real science.
1) Yes, he did.
2) Yes, the IPCC did say the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Yes, it's not geologically normal for there to be ANY year-round sea-ice on the planet. We're IN an ice-age. It's SUPPOSED TO get warmer. The iPCC simply assumed it would keep doing so.
3) The IPCC's data has ALWAYS shown "reality" as an outlier and this continues getting worse over time. Indeed, if trends since the first ICC report continue just a few more years, their model will be affirmatively PROVED false.
4) They tested numerous models* and deliberately chose the LEAST-accurate - so their model is actually LESS-accurate than a random number generator.
*Yes, you can test a model. You give it "past data" to see how well it "predicts" the present. It is a fact that a model based on random numbers did BETTER than the model the IPCC chose.
Read below what he actually said. He said that the Arctic ice cap might be gone by 2014 at EARLIEST. In the sentence right before that, he mentions another study suggesting that it might last until 2030.
"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years"
I had to FSM? a thumbs up for his picture of the cartoon (It would be nice is ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTs would post it) even though he was trying to excuse Gore's inexcusable nonsense and non-science.
I think he was although he certainly played loose with the fact but then again so did Mann (not that he was only scientist to ride the AGW gravy train).
So, if the Arctic is ice-free in 5-10 years from now, rather than this year, does that mean that the planet isn't warming?
Anyone not intentionally blind can see that Arctic sea ice is in sharp decline. While it would be nice if scientists could exactly predict when the Arctic will have its first ice-free summer, it would also be nice if scientists could exactly predict what next year's weather will be, or economists could exactly predict the stock market in a year's time, or the like. Inherently, when you are trying to predict the future, and that future depends on many variables, your predictions will sometimes be off anywhere from a bit to a lot. If the person before me with a smiley-face as his/her/its name quoted the prediction correctly, this one sounds like it's off a bit, not off a lot. "75%"=/="absolutely certain", for example...
The short answer; No.
The long answer;
All Gore stated "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."
Maslowski, whose work Gore cited, complained to the U.K. Telegraph that "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. … I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean.” [1]
Al Gore wasn't credible as vice president. Whether he read from peer reviewed papers or not, I believe nothing coming out of his mouth.
I think it is more than hilarious that warmonist say he didn't say that and in the same breath say he said that but also said .... As if making multiple ambiguous predictions is scientific. Ironic they call every nonbeliever a denier when their constant denial of what climate science has claimed would happen doesn't happen.
Do you agree that last year was in fact the warmest year ever recorded?
They aren't odds makers predicting this week's game.
Everyone heard Algore state that global warming scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free this year. Do you still have faith that this prediction will come true? Or should their be an investigation into why the computer models are so inaccurate? Do you still believe so-called "global warming" is real even when the computer models are wrong most of the time?
