Al Gore’s Day … climate quack

The day for the point of no return for the climate and an ice free Arctic and metres of sea level rise. Al Gore got it all wrong, but stopped millions of dollars of real environmental  funding with his science fiction movie, carbon scams and dealings with Al Jazeera.

Today is Al Gore’s Global Warming Doomsday by Dr. Ed Berry Here we are on January 26, 2016. Do you feel the heat? Do you see the clouds are gone and the sky is glowing red? Ten years ago, on January 25, 2006, Al Gore stood…|By Dr. Ed

Read it all.

About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley) Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Incorporated Kimberley Environmental Horticulture (KEH) is a small group of committed individuals who promote the use of indigenous plants for the landscaping of parks and gardens. Rehabilitation of Kimberley coast, bushland and pastoral regions are also high on our agenda. This includes planting seedlings, weed control, damage from erosion or any other environmental matter that comes to our attention. We come from all walks of life, from Professionals and Trades oriented occupations, Pensioners and Students, Public Servants and the Unemployed. We have a community plant nursery where we trial many old and new species, with a view to incorporating these into our landscaping trials. Our labour force are mainly volunteers, but with considerable help from the 'work for the dole' program, Indigenous Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) groups and the Ministry of Justice, with their community work orders; in this way we manage to train many people in the horticultural skills needed for indigenous plant growing. We constantly undertake field trips that cover seed and plant collection in the Kimberley. Networking around the Kimberley region and the east Pilbara is a necessary part of promoting our activities. We consult on a range of Environmental and Landscaping matters that deal with our region. Our activities involve improving Broome's residential streetscapes by including 'waterwise' priciples in planting out nature strips. Sustainable environmental horticulture is practised by members of our group. We use existing vegetation as the backbone of any plantings, using these species to advantage when planning to develop tree forms or orchards. The Broome region is sensitive to development. Subsequently many weed species have become dominant in and around developed areas. The use and movement of heavy machinery is the biggest single cause of environmental degradation. We dont live in a 'Tropical Paradise' but on the edge of the Great Sandy Desert. The plants that survive best here, grow in well-drained pindan sand, and are found from the Dampier Peninsular southward to where average rainfall is below 600mm. When we use rainforest species, detail is important when planting, water catchment, sunlight and understorey species are all considered. The use of recycled 'grey' water is an advantage here as well as treated waste-water, although many local species do not fare well with nutrients from this source. We use waterwise planting methods which include harvesting asmuch rainwater as possible, with swales designed to hold up to 200 litres, to help recharge the local groundwater aquifer. There has been a serious decline in this aquifer over the last few years. With the fast expansion of the Broome peninsular, more and more land is being covered by concrete, iron and bitumen so that much less water is available to replenish the aquifer, allowing the salt content to become significantly higher. The small Broome Peninsular is on the south-western corner of the Dampier Peninsular (bound by Broome, Derby and Cape Leveque at the northern tip). Compaction by vehicles also inhibits water retention due to the content of our local pindan sand, hard as concrete in the dry, going to soft and sloppy mud after rain. None of us are botanists, inevitably we have got some names wrong, names changed, or have not gone to sub-species level. If you note a photo or description may be wrong, please e-mail to
This entry was posted in Climate, comedy, Environment, science, weather and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Al Gore’s Day … climate quack

  1. jmsabbagh says:

    Al Gore ,lives in a 20 room mansion .How much heat and hoe much air condition he need.Yet he is talking about climate change???????????????

  2. john namnik says:

    They are all hypocrites Jalal; especially Australia’s main proponent of global warming, Prof Tim Flannery – his expertise is the study of kangaroos!!

  3. geoffmprice says:

    As is unfortunately common in this debate, you are misunderstanding what is meant by “point of no return”. It doesn’t mean the skies will glow red. This is not anything Gore or scientists said, it is just a reflection of your superficial understanding of what the actual issue is.

    What is meant is that the climate system has an enormous amount of inertia. It takes a long time for the surface to equilibrate to a change in planetary energy balance (the earth’s temperature is determined by a balance between incoming and outgoing energy, per simple application of conservation of energy.) This is because the oceans have to warm, and that takes a long time. On top of *this* factor, it also takes a long time for the warming oceans to melt the bases of the larger ice sheets and trigger more rapid collapse of ice.

    In other words, being able to see the iceberg doesn’t mean the ship turns in time. You are steaming toward the iceberg chortling “and they said we should worry about icebergs before it was too late to turn! haha, let’s have another drink!”

    You can complain that Gore is simplifying matters by saying “point of no return” as if there is one such point and it is clear where it is in time, but scientists are already chronicling “points of no return” that we are crossing, such as the fact that the full melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet now appears inevitable, though we still have some influence over how fast. This is enough sea level rise to write off many of the world’s major coastal cities. Not until later this century or the next century, if we are lucky, but cities like Miami are already struggling with existing sea level rise and will face critical flooding challenges just in coming decades.

    Yes, I feel foolish explaining this. You probably know all this, but as part of the anti-AGW activist echo chamber you are just pushing slogans and taunts and probably not particularly interested in physical reality in any form. But you never know who might wander by even a blog such as this and wonder what the actual underlying discussion is about.

    • Tom Harley says:

      So why was The Antarctic ice sheet mostly missing a hundred years ago? Why were submarines able to surface in ice free North Pole waters in the 1950s? It’s just weather recycling, and cities like Miami are most probably sinking. Global warming? Nuts.

  4. geoffmprice says:

    And then there’s physics, tide gauges, thermometers and about two centuries worth of scientific evidence and theory which say something quite different than what your gut says. I’m not interested in arguing unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant internet urban legends, I’m familiar with the multitude of web sites and their claims and I’m aware it’s a bottomless pit.

    I never made the claim you can’t believe what you want to believe, of course you can. I tend to focus on what can be known *verifiably* via scientific method.

    • Tom Harley says:

      I think you have a serious problem, not knowing what science is. I suggest you watch at least one of these viseos, at least 18 real scientists, in their own words. Not quacks like Gore, Hansen, Schmidt and Mann.
      Real scientists.

      • geoffmprice says:

        I’m familiar. The second reference is to Ivar Giaever’s video in which he (in)famously explains he spent “about a day on Google” researching climate science and learned (a bunch of silly things that aren’t true). I had time one afternoon a couple of weeks ago and wrote a detailed response to the factual claims in that very video:

        You are confusing “science” with an appeal to authority fallacy in which you think if someone who is a scientist in some way says something it must be true. What I mean by scientific method is a process of published, peer reviewed papers, theory and evidence consistently of *reproducible* results and findings. There is obviously no published papers or models supporting claims that solar radiation, which has been flat since the 60s, could possibly be driving the ongoing warming surge because per those observations and conventional thermodynamics there is no mechanism for the sun to deliver more energy to the earth.

        Discriminating between these kinds of claims is admittedly not trivial, requires effort and some level of scientific training etc. And you are a polarized “believer” in an online movement so at this point it’s not possible to convince you to try to justify your claims with credible facts and logic. I’ll skip replying to your next one, this should give more than enough context for any casual uninitiated reader to develop some informed opinion if they wish.

      • Tom Harley says:

        So you only have a problem with one video. All the others are fine then. As Einstein said, it only takes one to falsify a theory!

      • geoffmprice says:

        This technique – throw a long list of junk claims out and insist one of them must stick – is called a Gish gallop. It’s a common, bunk technique employed by anti-science activists in other domains such as anti-evolution activism as well.

        It’s not my job to debunk every last junk claim on the Internet. I have a real job. It’s your job to make a non-junk claim, if you have one. But at this point you don’t have the slightest idea how to even try to find out if anything you believe can be backed with facts and evidence, do you? There is no reason to listen to you.

      • Tom Harley says:

        You really have a problem Geoff. Those other videos are from the most respected scientists there are. Every one of them says, in their own words, that AGW is a ‘crock of s**t’. There are over a thousand peer reviewed papers that would agree with them.
        Do you know the Javier-Stokes equation? Look and learn.

      • geoffmprice says:

        chuckle. You mean Navier-Stokes. I’m familiar. Typically invoked by people who want to believe that chaotic swirling through some chaos magic overrides the first law of thermodynamics.

        I’m a skeptic. Your hand waves and rote repetition of urban legends aren’t going to get you anywhere.

      • Tom Harley says:

        Dr David Evans’ new papers falsify the theory. Is he wrong too? In 21 parts.

      • Tom Harley says:

        Look who is doing the hand-waving. Why is it so hard for the ‘warmist’ to convince people about global warming? I used to believe, but read a lot, it hasn’t warmed, then I had to change my mind. I believe the balloon data, and the satellite data.
        I am not happy, I hoped it was going to warm, so I am pleased that atmospheric CO2 has risen, at the very least, my plants and trees are doing very well.
        Show me why you think it’s warming out of control. Or even warming at all, because where I am sitting it’s not happening, and hasn’t in the last 120 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s