Comments
Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends
The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. “This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented,” he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)
Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.
Dot Earth: ‘Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends’
So while Gore’s office was right to pull the CRED information from their talk as lacking a scientific basis, the continuing reliance on data from Munich Re does not solve the basic issue, which is that attribution of the increasing toll of disasters to human-caused climate change remains speculative at best and not supported by science. To the contrary, increasing societal exposure and growing wealth in vulnerable locations are the overwhelming drivers of the increasing losses, a conclusion well supported by many studies. Here is a test to see how far Gore is willing to go in maintaining standards of accuracy in his talk.
Now that Gore has admitted that including the slide based on CRED data was a mistake, it raises a more fundamental: How could it be that Al Gore presented obviously misleading information before a large audience of the world’s best scientists, which was then amplified in a press release by AAAS, and none of these scientists spoke up?
Prometheus: ‘Gore Pulls CRED Data From Talk’
February 24th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Here’s something that I found on my IP service’s homepage. Global warming danger threat increased
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels.”
Has something happened with the estimation of co2 sensitivity? That’s the only thing I can think of as a reason the IPCC would define disasterous temps downward.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Oh and Jennifer is alive and kicking. Instead of vacation, I think she was just off starting her own political party. See Andrew Bolt’s blog for detail.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Quite simple what happens, really — It’s the failure of template science, when all scientific curiosity is replaced with a marching band, all pursuing the holy grail, grants.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:44 am
To me its a sign of a losing party clutching at straws, when things arent going well. Remember the same people that are telling you we have a problem with Global Warming couldnt even predict accurately the near collapse of financial institutions. These people should stop spinning, and worry about the real eviriomental issues, rather than tiny natural changes in the climate.
To date the temperature has not done what Hansen/ Mann have predicted, why should we beleive that they have any better knowledge for the future