The Al Gore Concert

I caught the start of the Al Gore concert last night in Sydney. It opened with a fat guy with white makeup beating his own drum. And it wasn’t even Al Gore.

The form of the concert reminded me of last weekend, Princess Diana concert except that it’s BIGGER, its consumption is more conspicuous and more lavish. Al Gore showed last year that he could use more electricity than 20 Americans and this year he showed that his concerts could use more electricity than 20 princesses. I guess that there must have been a form of competition between Al Gore and the Princess for stars. I wonder how many appear in both – I notice that Sarah Brightman is in both. Maybe some hung around London for a week watching Wimbledon.

Neither concert seemed very evocative of their causes. Elton John and Princess Diana – OK, I get that connection, but Kanye West and Princess Di? Somehow I doubt that many aspiring black rappers had little shrines to Princess Diana.

Today I pondered the linkage between Shakira and climate change. We used to hear about chaos and the butterfly effect – you know, the idea that when a butterfly flaps its wings in South America, it can change the chaos trajectory. Maybe this was what Al Gore was trying to illustrate – when Shakira sings about moving her hips and then shimmies for emphasis, this isn’ about music promotion, it’s a science lesson about the butterfly effect using a South American singer for authenticity.

But then over to Rihanna in Tokyo who was doing a ditty using umbrella as props. I think that the the message was that, with climate change, we would sometimes need umbrellas. But then she started shimmying as well, so maybe this was another lesson about the butterfly effect, but at a very profound level.

Regardless, both were big improvements over fat guys in white makeup beating their own drums. Anyway by this time, Wimbledon was on, so I could ponder more serious questions like whether Gasquet could challenge Federer or whether Djokovich had anything left in his tank after a 5 hour marathon match yesterday,


  1. Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    Here are my thoughts on “Live Goreth”.

  2. Ross McKitrick
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    Don’t worry about all those CO2 emissions from the rock stars and their entourages travelling to the concert sites. I’m sure Gore will arrange for the sponsors and attendees to buy millions of dollars worth of carbon offsets. From Generation Investment Management of course (, A. Gore Chairman.

  3. Buddenbrook
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    What disturbs me a bit is how much they utilize children in their clips, short films or whatever those little political pieces are. It just doesn’t feel right, when kids are repeating things grown ups have asked them to say. Such emotionality is kinda cheap and goes to show how ideological this whole thing has become.

    And how hypocritical does it sound to hear Naomi Campbell preach about the environment. Poor brain fails to process such a contrast.

    Many of these artists travel by private jets, couldn’t bother to fly commercial air-lines if only for the publicity stunt.

  4. Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink


  5. Sloan's Teddy
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    Live Earth,

    Micheal M.* “Jackson” wrote new lyrics for his famous song:

    There comes a time,
    when we heed a certain call,
    lalalalahhh …..

    we are the world,
    we are the tea-eam,
    we are the ones that need your cash,
    so let’s start giving,
    there are curves we’re faking,
    we’re saving all our “lives”,
    but we don’t want no brighter day,
    just clouds and rain …..

    (I am the world, I am the climate …..)


  6. Mike H.
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Butterfly, butterfly, changing the plan,
    Can you help Algore as he’s leading the band?
    He’s crumbling he’s crumbling, as things get too hot,
    But why can’t he see, the band’s helping, is …. Not!

  7. Gary
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    Here’s another song to sing: the AWG version of King Arthur’s song in Camelot
    (with apologies to Lerner and Loewe):

    It’s true! It’s true! Al Gore has made it clear.
    The world is warming more and more each year.

    We started burning too much fossil fuel here.
    July and August now are much too hot.
    For soon there will be no more snow here
    In Warmalot.

    The winters now arrive way past December;
    It says so on the data plot.
    Torrid summers linger through September
    In Warmalot.

    Warmalot! Warmalot!
    Although it sounds a bit bizarre,
    But in Warmalot, Warmalot
    That’s how conditions are.

    Predictions say we’re in for lots of trouble.
    However, federal grants will soon appear.
    The CO2 has got
    To a convenient spot
    For happ’ly modeling climate here
    In Warmalot.

    Warmalot! Warmalot!
    We humans sadly are the cause,
    But in Warmalot, Warmalot
    We’ll make up lots of laws.
    At last consensus says the issue’s settled
    So science facts will never interfere.

    Deniers then cannot
    Find an inconvenient spot
    For happ’ly trading carbon credits here
    In Warmalot.

  8. John A
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    Not everyone is swallowing the hype.

    From the Investor’s Daily:

    Environment: Will Al Gore’s “Live Earth” concerts to remind us of the global warming bogeyman be acoustic affairs played without lights and amplification? No? Then why not call them the Live Hypocrisy concerts?

    As many as 2 billion of us are expected to watch more than 150 pop and rock acts Saturday at various locations across the world. Gore sees the extravaganza as the “beginning of a three-year campaign worldwide to deliver information about how we solve the climate crisis.”

    But there’s no crisis here except for a crisis of credibility ‘€” and not just that of Gore, whose credibility has been in question for decades. The credibility that’s on the line is that of the global warming movement, which is already questionable. The event’s organizers, promoters, celebrities and participants are engaging in one of most monumental acts of hypocrisy in memory.

  9. MarkW
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

    If Gore actually believes that poverty is a form of virtue, then he has a strange way of showing it.

    Maybe he believes that it’s other people’s poverty that is virtuous.

    Just like most liberals believe that spending other people’s money counts as charity.

  10. BarryW
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    I see Gore more along the lines of the Soviet nomenkatura, or maybe the medival Church leaders, living in splendor but telling everyone else that asceticism is a virtue. The only difference between the way a Jim Baker worked the crowd and Gore is that one pushed the saving of souls and one pushes the saving of the “natural” earth. One worshiped God and one worships Gaia. Both are hypocrits.

    The sad part is there are many local enviornmental problems that are not being addressed, while everyone focuses on one number (global average temp) which is of debateable accuracy and untility. When I see someone who thinks that holding a concert is the way of solving a problem, I’m sickened. How many problems have been solved by all the previous “Live fill-in-the-blank” concerts?

  11. Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    OT question for people who are clearly much more knowledgeable than I am… *L*

    I’ve been checking out the dvd’s of The Great Warming and reviewing them on my blog. One of the things I’ve noticed is that they seem to be using the terms “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” interchangeably. If carbon isn’t a gas, how can increasing carbon in the air be the same as increasing CO2? Am I missing something?

  12. Peter
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    People seems to be confused over the purpose of this concert. It is NOT to raise awareness about ‘climate change.’

    This concert, with its attendant overwhelming tonnage of hypocrisy and cant, is designed to see how stupid, ignorant and sheepish the general population are.

    This is a prelude to another envelope pushing charge towards getting the ‘little people’ – not the high priests – to know their place in the world, to give up those empowering cheap flights, the independence of the car, the houses that they’ve become accustomed to, the lifestyles they enjoy.

    This is about finding out how much freedom the ‘masses’ will settle for by way of gauging how thick they are.

    I have an answer: we aren’t thick. We see through it.

    I cannot believe – CANNOT BELIEVE – the mainstream media, including, I’m sorry to say the BBC – have not ripped this whole thing apart.

    In years to come, when this is all proven to be complete and utter BS – those media organisations that have hitched their wagons to this ridiculous theory, will be damaged beyond repair.

    I don’t do schadenfreude – but it will be a sight to behold.

    Pete, Belfast

  13. Harold Vance
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    South Park’s spoof of Gore, the Man-Bear-Pig episode, is both hilarious and spot on.

  14. Reid
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore is the Reverend Ike of AGW.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    Folks, no venting please. If you can write something light or amusing, then OK. But nothing angry please…

  16. Ian Foulsham
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    Just had Shakira and her truth-telling hips over in Hamburg.

    Also just had UK Comedian David Baddiel who is a Jew, complaining about the term Denier applied to people who have slight doubts on AGW and that it was a term that was offensive and way over the top. Jonathan Ross the presenter over here had to cut quickly to the Beastie Boys. I could be paraphrasing and extrapolating a bit as I didn’t quite catch all of it.

    Also an interesting analysis by the “Environmental Analyst” next to him saying that we are coming to the end of a warming cycle and that scientists are “worried” that instead of going into the natural cooling cycle we would keep heading on up. so we have gone from 90%+ certain to being worried.

    I was surprised that the Beeb had anyone on expressing a contrary view, but fittingly had a comedian rather than a genuine person of substance. Having said that Baddiel does have a double first in History from Oxford/Cambridge, and is a really bright guy.

    Oh God, now it’s the pussycat dolls. That should get everyone saving the planet.

    I was wondering whether any rock star would actually turn round and say “I think it’s a crock”. It would be a PR disaster for them. Whatever happened to being anti-establishment? Maybe that’s what they think they are.

  17. John A
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore is the Reverend Ike of AGW.

    Nope. He’s something else.

  18. Reid
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Re #18 Ian says “the “Environmental Analyst” next to him saying that we are coming to the end of a warming cycle and that scientists are “worried” that instead of going into the natural cooling cycle…”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t all IPCC scenarios for the next 20 years call for global warming?

    The fact that the IPCC has not included a cooling scenario may come back to haunt them.

  19. KevinUK
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    #19 John A

    Totally agree and its good to see Numberwatch in you website/blog links section.

  20. PaulH
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    I may be getting a tad too old to rock like I used to, but I still find the pairing of corporate rock and political propaganda uniquely odious.

  21. Ian Foulsham
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    re 20
    Well, I have to say that kind of admission smacked my gob as never before.
    We had Doctor Who on a few minutes ago(probably familiar to Canadians, but not so well known in the USA)saying, even if it is wrong it can’t do any harm. Absolutely. Making political decisions based on shaky assumptions never did any harm. Sorry, just stopped myself before I vented. :o)

    Anyway, they can all wash their hands, Pilate like later if/when nothing apocalyptic happens as they are all saying “It’s not me, Guv, it’s the scientists wot are saying it”, an appeal to authority if ever there was one. Reminds me of my own industry, which is finance and fund management. Whenever there is a crash and asset x turns out not to be destined to go up exponentially forever in a never ending spiral of wealth, when the fallout comes, all the financial advisers say “Well obviously it wasn’t going to go on forever” and “no one else thought it would end this way either so you can’t blame me for talking it up”.

  22. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Re#20, if the earth cools, then Gore et al will take credit for having raised the awareness of climate change, claim the actions they sparked are what reverse AGW, etc.

    I may be a “skeptic,” but I think we’re more likely to warm than cool as long as we’re increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere…and certainly as more of the earth becomes a concrete jungle and increases in population. And as another form of skeptic (maybe more appropriately “cynic”), even if we do cool, or remain about the same, I don’t see the current guardians of surface-based records keeping their hands off the data enough to allow a cooling trend to exist in their adjustments.

  23. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    Read Hi and Lois today in the colored comics. The kids noted that the water at the beach was higher – they concluded – Global Warming!! and asked their parents if they could ride their bikes to the beach. Okay, next.

  24. Paul Linsay
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore is the Reverend Ike of AGW.

    Nope, he’s this guy without the talent or good looks.

  25. Reid
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    Re #24 Michael Jankowski says “I may be a “skeptic,” but I think we’re more likely to warm than cool as long as we’re increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere…”

    I am a skeptic, cynic, denialist and heretic. I believe extra CO2 in the atmosphere is wonderful for most life-forms on the planet.

    My psuedo-scientific intuitive statistical probability analysis is as scientifically robust as the IPCC’s. They don’t explain how they arrive at their probability numbers and neither do I. Were both cutting edge consensus scientists that way. My cutting edge intuitive analysis says 75% chance that 2030 will be cooler than 2000. 66% chance the 1998 high will not be eclipsed in the next 10 years. 2% chance Al Gore gets frostbite while traveling in Greenland to promote AGW.

  26. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Re: #17

    Folks, no venting please. If you can write something light or amusing, then OK. But nothing angry please

    Actually I have a serious question about the intent and purpose of these events. I usually totally ignore these “concerts with a cause” because they never appear to me to get beyond the feel good about yourself doing good. Since I cannot bear to look can someone tell me if the intent is to raise money for an organization or organizations that will in turn promote educating the public about AGW and the mitigation thereof and/or actually doing some lecturing at the concerts? That might be a gas and worth a look if they actually had a professorial type up on stage for 30 to 60 minutes explaining the finer points of AGW to a crowd of rock concert goers.

  27. John Baltutis
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    Re: #11

    All priests clamor for their supplicants to give: give to them, the power, the money, etc. That’s what the entire camel and needle’s eye thing is about. Give, give, give it up!! Never mentioned is who receives. Without receivers, there’s no need for giving.

  28. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    These seem like events designed to give benefit to the younger generation from all the climate science investigation. Free performances by noted performers.

  29. Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    My grandaughter asked how playing music would change the temperature?

    She then asked when the concerts finished and how soon afterwards they would measure the temperature again to see if it had worked.

  30. BarryW
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    #31 With all that hot air? of course it will! Gore’s making sure his predictions come true!

  31. tetris
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    All very funny, weren’t it so utterly pathetic…

  32. Jaye
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    While channel surfing, I saw a short film (which must have been shown in between acts) that essentially equated non belief in AGW as signing a pact with Satan. Didn’t catch much of it but that is what it seemed they were saying. Pathetic drivel if you ask me.

  33. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    I started watching the production on CTV. But soon they had a break and before restarting they had a note which said: “Some of the language used may be offensive to some people.” I was not sure which language or speeches they were referring to, and of course I strive to keep my life clean so I changed to the weather so I could see how the warming was affecting the west and southwest.
    Sounds like Global Warming may have caused someone to go off in New York New York.

  34. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jul 7, 2007 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    Let’s get a couple of terms and qoutes into the lexicology.

    “Denier” is an old term used to describe the thickness of nylon stockings.

    Re Al,

    H.L. Mencken in the 1920s wrote two applicable sentences:

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

    “The saddest life is that of the political aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success is disgraceful.”

    You might also take into account that Al’s education, his status to write world class scholarly articles, is not related solely to Gaia, but partly to God.

    He attended the exclusive Baptist St Alban’s School and thereafter graduated BA from Harvard in 1969; attended the Graduate School of Religion, Vanderbilt University 1971 ‘€” 2 and Law School 1974 ‘€” 6. I sum that to about a decade of learning about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (I believe in pins).

  35. Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

    I usually totally ignore these “concerts with a cause”

    Me too! As a bass player, I much prefer concerts with no other purpose than to listen to good live music and maybe have a beer or two, as long as I’m not performing… and as long as it’s not too expensive.

  36. Sara Chan
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    London’s Sunday Times has an article entitled “This is just opening shot”. The article discusses how Al Gore was at each concert—either live or on a large screen—and how Gore has big plans to get more people doing something about perceived global warming. It ends by quoting Gore saying that he is “not ruling [a presidential run] out completely”.

  37. 2dogs
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    Hi Guys!

    Join the party on over at

    Its a blast!

  38. Harry G
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    All the concerts sold tickets for entry – who takes the profit if they ran at a surplus and who picked up the tab if they ran at a loss?

  39. Jaye
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    Today I pondered the linkage between Shakira and climate change.

    Well I thinks that’s quite obvious. She usually induces a warm humid environment in the microclimate surrounding most males that watch her perform.

  40. Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    Re Pete’s comments in 14,
    The BBC long time ago gave up being one sided on AGW and indeed were recently critised in a report for doin so. I really dont know why some one does not do a 2hr TV show called something like ” Climate on Trial” in which a pseudo trial is undertaken to aire these issues. Both sides given an equal opportunity to state their case and cross examine opposing views. Studio and National audiences to vote on the outcomes acting as jury.
    RE 17
    The was an old man called Gore
    Who liked a musical tour
    He said use less not more
    But he was above this law
    So Pop with a warning
    On global Warming
    Turned out to be a bore.

  41. Steve Moore
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    Chris Rock had the best comment:

    “I think this will do for global warming what Live 8 did for ending world hunger.”


  42. David Smith
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Cold weather dampens turnout

  43. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Yesterday morning, Al Gore opened the Washington concerts at the American Museum for the Indian. Gore “shimmied” a little in the background to one of the songs. I don’t think that he’ll be applying for a job as a back-up dancer for Shakira in the near future.

    I also found the attempted linkage of climate change to aboriginal issues to be a distraction and annoying.

  44. GMF
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    Re #44 I like how the promoter blamed “climate change” – cold weather – for the poor turnout!

    No concept is history has ever been more useful than global warming. It can explain anything!

    Why bother with old fashioned science when you use new, improved, multipurpose AGW – the swiss army knife of explanations.

    I mean there just isn’t anything that GW can’t explain. Hot weather, cold weather, disease, plague, drought, flood, famine, refugees, war, rising seas, mass extinctions, your grandmother’s cake not rising, hollywood blockbusters tanking at the box office, Al Gore’s son getting busted…the list is endless.

    And it’s all GLOBAL WARMING people !!

    No wonder AGW promoters are so keen to indoctrinate – er – educate us to the wonders of their product.

    Can’t wait for the infomercial.

  45. John A
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    I don’t think that he’ll be applying for a job as a back-up dancer for Shakira in the near future.

    Shakira is right about one thing – her hips don’t lie.

  46. Philip B
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    One of the things I’ve noticed is that they seem to be using the terms “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” interchangeably.

    It’s indicated of the ignorance of many AGW believers that they confuse particulate carbon pollution (smog) with rising CO2 levels, and make statements along the lines of, “You don’t think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. You should see how bad the carbon pollution is in Chinese cities. People can’t breath the air its so polluted.”

  47. Philip B
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    2nd word should be ‘indicative’.

  48. Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    Not Happy. $50 for beer at Sydney show.

  49. GMF
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    Re #50

    It was “unAustralian”, one spectator protested. “This is what happens when you let hippies organise a big event,” another said. One woman, asked by Missy Higgins “how you all are back there”, earned a wry round of applause from the stands when she shouted: “Sober.”

  50. GMF
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    Meanwhile on Real Earth at least one band seems to have more integrity than most of the celebrities trying their hand at arm waving…

  51. GMF
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Ok link didn’t work.

  52. Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    My guess would be that these concerts were probably a money losing operation that didn’t raise a dime to support anything and caused thousands of people to burn a lot more fossil fuel then they otherwise would have this weekend.

    It is Orwellian.

  53. aurbo
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    Re #39,

    Nice to see that ABC Australia is going to broadcast the “Swindle”.

    Unfortunately, none of the broadcast networks in the US (including PBS) has chosen to do so. It has been available on several internet locations.

    Some US network, broadcast or cable, should run both the Gore “Incovenient Truth” and the UK Channel 4 production of the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” back to back. Maybe this will get rid of the hyperbole and the scientific community can get back to doing serious Climate Change investigations.

  54. Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 10:58 PM | Permalink


    They should update “swindle” to include such things as painted metal Stevenson screens in England, poor placement of recording stations, deviations from standard guidelines in coatings and placement globally, note the recent discussion of “adjustments” to the raw data, etc.

  55. GMF
    Posted Jul 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

    Re #55

    Nice idea, but unlikely to happen. This is not about finding the truth, it is about supporting the Party Line and the Party Line is AGW.

    There is only the Party Line, alternative views do not exist. (There is a consensus, the science is settled). And if they did exist, they would be wrong. So there is no need to debate (The debate is over) since AGW has been politically determined to be true. Science is just slow in catching up with the “reality”.

  56. Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 1:13 AM | Permalink

    It’s indicated of the ignorance of many AGW believers that they confuse particulate carbon pollution (smog) with rising CO2 levels,

    Thanks. That’s what was confusing me. I just had a hard time believing that they’d make such a blatant error on the movie. I began to wonder if I was missing something, but it seems I wasn’t. They did talk about how AGW is supposed to make smog worse, but that’s not when the term was used.

  57. Terence Hale
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 1:41 AM | Permalink

    The week-end of the 8-7-07 may have been the week-end of the “narrs”. Mr. Gore made his show the BBC also. Listening to the BBC program on Sunday it exemplifies the problem in and around global warming. Many Departments of the environment and environmentalists have been forced out of there “Cinderella sleep” in to the front line, ill prepared to address a problem that is little understood. The related BBC web site is like a tax form full of data for many people incomprehensible. Global warming is happening whether man made or a nature cycle is irrelevant, its changing our lives so we have to stop it, slow it down or adapt. High tech solutions are more important than changing light bulbs. Synthetic photosynthesis, carbon dioxide extraction, sulphur dioxide extraction (SO2 is more of a danger in light of volcanic activity). I feel Left heart fibrillations like these events are just entertainment, the financial basis of which would interest me. Put industry before the people “industry on earth” this would be more effective. In the discussion from these events little is said about public health, a good sun cream is also more important than changing light bulbs.
    Dr. Terence Hale

  58. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

    Re#58, Kunoichi:

    AGW proponents purposely mix up “emissions” of harmless CO2 and nasty to human health pollutants such as diesel soot, hydrocarbons (products of incomplete combustion), and NOx. It allows them to ride the noble idea of cleaning up the air we breeze for promoting their agenda.

    Heck, they even routinely illustrate their claims with pictures of huge smoke stacks belching dark smoke. CO2 is, actually, transparent gas, and in most cases these smoke stacks are just cooling towers (they looks really fat and impressive), emitting just water vapor. In some cases pictures of evil polluting power stations are just nuclear plants, having zero CO2 emissions.

    AGW has huge potential to make our life miserable. Just an example: I can re-flash computer chip of any modern car to dance around lean detonation limit and will reduce it CO2 emissions by 10%. With some cheap modifications, like installing wide band oxygen sensor, I can boost fuel efficiency (reduce CO2 emissions) by 20%. Catalytic converter will become inoperational, and huge amounts of HC and NOx will make our air really smoggy (google “London smog”), but NOx will be washed down with precipitation and will boost vegetational carbon sequestration, being powerful plant fertilizer. I am not sure this craziness will not happen.

  59. Pete
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

    Proliferation of diesel cars in Europe, supposedly being “climate friendly”, results in more then one hundred thousand human-year premature death per year.

    Wow. That’s a lot. Where did you get that figure from?

  60. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    I had asked people to keep this light and not to get into angry things. I’ve asked people not to vent about policy.

  61. JP
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 7:52 AM | Permalink


    On a lighter note, Drudge reported yesterday that attendence in Johannesburg SA was very light due to snow and cold weather. Johannesburg saw its first snowfall since 1982.

  62. Ian Blanchard
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    And the organiser of the JoBurg event suggested this was due to climate change. (A bit like the polar explorers who were forced to turn back on their North Pole expedition to highlight warming because of the cold)

    Oh well, if the alarmists don’t get you coming, they get you going.

  63. MarkW
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    They’ve certainly got us going.

  64. Darwin
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    Re 62: Gore “light,” that’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

  65. GMF
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    On a lighter note here is one review of the propaganda from Gore-Earth

    and the Global Warming Survival Handbook.

    Jam packed with ideas for saving the planet such as wear a jumper, grow your own tomatoes and this one :

    One approach to seeing the future is through scenarios ‘€” carefully crafted “what if?” stories that let us imagine several different outcomes’, the book says. It suggests holding a scenario party’ (seriously) where you can pool the imaginations and experiences of your friends’. In short: we have no idea what the future will look like, but let’s knock about some shocking what if?’ scenarios over a glass of wine to make ourselves feel simultaneously terrified/terrifically important. It’s the closest you’ll get to a naked admission from the climate change lobby that its warnings of floods and pestilence and swarms of locusts are based on its members’ own fevered, teenage imaginings rather than a scientifically revealed forecast of what is to come.

  66. Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    Heck, they even routinely illustrate their claims with pictures of huge smoke stacks belching dark smoke. CO2 is, actually, transparent gas, and in most cases these smoke stacks are just cooling towers (they looks really fat and impressive), emitting just water vapor. In some cases pictures of evil polluting power stations are just nuclear plants, having zero CO2 emissions.

    Oh my, yes! The Great Warming (the third disc of which my daughters and I are about to watch) is full of images like this.

    Proliferation of diesel cars in Europe, supposedly being “climate friendly”…

    I’ve been wondering about this. I know a lot of people had been converting to diesel because it’s cheaper (though not so much, anymore). Propane as well. I don’t know anything about propane, but I thought diesel was a *lot* worse than gas for polluting in general. Now it’s environmentally friendly?

    I’ve also been surprised that CO2 from vehicle exhaust has become such a big thing. Of all the stuff in our car exhaust that’s harmful, I’ve never hear of CO2 being a problem until recently. CO, on the other hand, is deadly. It’s like worrying about stepping on a nail while walking over a floor covered in broken glass. 😛

  67. Hasse@norway
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore: Imagine this guy trying to ban heavy metal 20 years ago :)He’s now back trying to fight AGW. “Is it just me or do these two causes look similar?” Al Gore 20 years on, still fighting phantom menaces….

  68. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    I observe now Southern Emisphere: waht I find?

    It is one of the coldest winters ever for Argentina.
    Today snow interested Buenos Aires: the major snow event since 1928 (snow was seen just in some districts in very few occasions between then and today – but the city has never been blanketed since 1918). Snow also in Catamarca, 28°S (for us Europeans, it would more south than Cairo) and up to 20cm/8″ of snow in the region of Cordoba, west of the capital.
    In the south of the country, -20°C in Maquinchao and -19°C in Bariloche (yesterday -15.8°C), that is to say 17°C below the mean values, and -12°C in Bahia Blanca on the Atlantic coast.

    It is very cold also in New Zealand, where Dunedin touched -8.8°C beating the previous historical record of -8.5°C (and it had matched it just the day before).
    And in Chile too, e.g. in Balmaceda (about 500m/1700ft, the same altitude of Munich) -16.7°C.

    And in South Africa too the winter is very cold until now, with Joahnnesburg blanketed by snow for the first time since 1981.

    So we have a surprising coincidence of many cold records in many different parts of Austral Emisphere in the same weeks.
    And this is very different from North America and Eurasia: South America, Africa and New Zealand have none at all of continental cold air “tanks”, not to say that Canada and Siberia are very large and very cold to “fuel” our winters; no, they all have just thousands kilometers of open sea between them and Antarctica.

    And MSU and HadCRU data see a net cooling of this emisphere since 2002.
    And data show how average continental Antarctic temperature is cooling.
    And that its sea ice sheet is slightly advancing. And that its continental glacial mass balance is increasing too.

    What are able to say about all this Al Gore and his devotes (unfortunately among them some scientist)?
    That of course Antarctica is warming and melting.
    Or, e.g., organisers of Joahnnesburg Live Earth blamed AGW for the cold weather (?!?) which would have led to the poor result of the event.
    I do not know if starting laughing or crying.

  69. Hasse@norway
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 5:35 PM | Permalink

    #70 Will we soon see conserts put in place by Al Gore promoting awarness of the need of blankets in the third world?

  70. Harry
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM | Permalink


    I had asked people to keep this light and not to get into angry things. I’ve asked people not to vent about policy.

    Its that kind of territory Steve. Al Gore and his rock concert are going to produce that kind of response.

    In the meantime, (sorry if this has been posted elsewhere on this site), here’s how both Al Gore and his concert are playing out in Kampala:

  71. Harry
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 11:17 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, somehow the link failed to show:

  72. Harry
    Posted Jul 9, 2007 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

    OK, third times a charm:

    Africa: It’s Live Earth Versus Africa

  73. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 12:57 AM | Permalink


    From current EU report:

    “Recently the UC “Clean Air for Europe” program estimated that more then 370 000 people die prematurely each year due to current air pollution level (e.g. from fine particulate matter and ozone)… The increased share of diesel vehicles is a significant problem…”

    Click to access term_2005.pdf

    Page 20. They are talking about ground transport air pollution in EU 15. BTW, this EU report demonstrates ravaging increase of CO2 emissions from transport sector in Europe, Kyoto notwithstanding.

    Direct estimations of diesel cars share ‘€” versus gasoline cars ‘€” in harmful air pollution is tricky to make, and for understandable reasons this particular problem is not well publicized. But some rough estimations could be done considering this:

    1)diesel car emits about three times NOx of gasoline car (0.5 g/km for diesel versus 0.15 for gasoline according to Euro 3 standard of year 2000, and 0.25 g/km versus 0.08 g/km according to current Euro 4 standard from 2005), and emit extremely harmful PM soot (0.14 g/km in 1992, 0.05 g/km in 2000, 0.025 g/km in 2005). In US (same already in Japan and practically same in Canada) current T2B5 emission standards are equal for gasoline and diesel cars (that’s why there are no diesel cars on sale ‘€” they can not meet emission standard), being 0.044 g/km for NOx and 0.0063 g/km for PM ‘€” about 4-5 times tougher than current emission standard for diesel cars in Europe.

    2)personal transportation consumes about 65% of transportation liquid fuel;

    3)for couple of years sales of diesel cars in most European countries exceeded sales of gasoline cars, and rising;

    4)current European legislation makes mandatory CO2 emission cap of 130 g/km for cars. No regular gasoline car can meet it, hybrids are not able to catch any significant part of the market (extremely successful hybrid cars in US account for only 2% of sales for new light-duty vehicles), and only small diesel cars could meet this requirement. From the other hand only PROPOSED Euro 6 ‘€” in 2014 ‘€” will bring PM emissions from diesel cars to current US levels (0.005 g/km), and twice higher than current US standard for NOx ‘€” 0.08 g/km versus current US 0.0044 g/km. Quite telling about preferences of European legislators.

    In addition, if using CARB emission factors and their methodology to estimate premature death from diesel air pollution (standard practice for CARB and EPA for accessing any new proposed emission legislation), 100 000 premature death number seems quite conservative.

  74. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 2:24 AM | Permalink

    It seems to be really the “century winter” for South America.
    Many north argentinian cities see snowfalls from the first time, or in the major way, since 1928, while in the south the cold is harsh. It has snowed in Salta, 1000m/3300ft but also 24°S.
    In Chile, Valparaiso, 100m/330ft, near the Capital Santiago, saw snow for the first time in its hundreds years history.
    And Bolivian capital, La Paz, 4000m/13300ft but also 16°S, is blocked by the snow.

    So, where’s Al Gore now? I bet in a hot and sunny place…

  75. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    I forgot another major climate event of last months: in November 2006, icebergs nearly reached Ne Zealnad coast, for the first time since 1931.

  76. GMF
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    The results are in

    Why Live Earth was a Dead Loss

    There were 70,000 people in Wembley Stadium. The organisers had hoped for a television audience of two billion, to highlight the imminent dangers of global warming. On stage, Tom Chaplin from Keane vainly tried to lead a singalong. Behind him, a big screen boasted “We Called – You Answered”, while the numbers who had responded to Live Earth’s text message pledge were rolled out. The first line was “3,389 UK responses”.

    Frankly, my local community signed up more people to protest against a phone mast, and our only celebrity was a voiceover actor for Bob the Builder.

    And viewer numbers were in the millions not the billions (a common problem with AGW science – the real numbers always seem to be less than predicted).,23599,22048874-2,00.html

  77. jae
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    Yessir, it’s fun to watch Al Bore AGAIN become the veritable image of his political party’s charicature.

  78. Neal J. King
    Posted Jul 10, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    I interrupt normal programming to announce that I have received answers to questions, generated in discussion at the ClimateAudit blog, directed to D.E. Parker concerning his study on the Urban Heat Island effect, and its effect (or lack thereof) on the perception of global warming through land-based temperature measurements.

    You can find his responses at: ,
    starting at entry #386.

  79. Matthew Drabik
    Posted Jul 11, 2007 at 12:18 PM | Permalink

    I don’t understand why posters cannot stay on topic.

    Various people insist on discussing television ratings and SH cooling when Steve obviously set up this thread as a place to post links to hot pictures of Shakira

    This is even better than finally getting a thermodynamics thread!

  80. jae
    Posted Jul 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM | Permalink


  81. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    Hockey Pokey.


  82. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 11, 2007 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    Or even Hockey Pocus.


2 Trackbacks

  1. […] Clark Link to Article al gore The Al Gore Concert » Posted at Climate Audit – by Steve McIntyre on […]

  2. […] Link to Article wimbledon The Al Gore Concert » Posted at Climate Audit – by Steve McIntyre […]

%d bloggers like this: