Apocalypse Gore

By July 6, 2007Global Warming

From a German-language interview of former Vice President with Daniel Aminati of Galileo, a science show on the Pro-Sieben TV channel that’s sponsoring “Live Earth” Hamburg. Aminati is going to be a big personality on the broadcast.

Daniel Aminati, Galileo: Mr. Gore, many thanks for taking the time to talk to Germany. How late is it for us in this climate question: Is it a quarter to midnight, five minutes to midnight, or is it even five minutes after midnight?

Al Gore: When we look at the climate, it’s still before midnight, but only shortly before midnight. The most renowned scientists of the world are warning us, that we possibly only have 10 years to undertake the serious, determined efforts to minimize the most terrible consequences of climate change, those that could lead us to an unimaginable catastrophe for mankind if we do not undertake them. Still, we have time to act.

Phew. Thank goodness. More…

LIVE EARTH – On Saturday there’s going to be wonderful concerts taking place all over the world. The biggest popstars of the entire world are your ambassadors. What are you hoping for from Live Earth?

Al Gore: That it’s the greatest entertainment event in our history. The concert in Hamburg is one of eight in the entire world and there will be more than 10,000 smaller events organized in 119 countries all across the globe. And the intent is to really bring attention to the importance of this theme, but also to ask people to sign the Seven-Point-Plan.

We’re assuming the interview was conducted in English, so this is a German back to English translation that no doubt only captures the gist, not the exact wording, of Gore’s pronouncements.

In any case, WOW!, there’s no doubt, balance or humility being shown, is there?

Seriously, this level of certitude is scary, and it’s certainly not the basis for wise policymaking. Our elected officials, people who can help or screw up the economy, should acknowledge their human fallibility and the possibility that someone else is right. For example….

Global Warming: it’s not caused by greenhouse gases says academic

An Australian academic has spoken out against the popular view that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. He believes that global warming and climate change are caused by cycles in the sun’s electro-magnetic radiation. He says scientists are taking a narrow view and politicians are making policy with the wrong information.

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO is a former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University. He told Tom Harwood, ABC Western Queensland’s Morning Program producer that the world has been warming naturally due to increased magnetic radiation from the sun.

Watch out, professor. You’re bucking the tide of pop stars, Euro-celebs and Al Gore. And they recognize thought crime when they see it.

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • yonason says:

    “. . . how come all the scientists quoted as denying the dangers of global warming are never from the field that they pretend to be experts in?” — Tim L

    Sorry, Tim, I didn’t find what I had done with this link until after I posted that last, so here it is – 23 (@ last count) Climate Experts who ARE recognized as TOPS in their field who are “GW-apostates” if you will.

    And, I don’t know if he’s included there, but the recognized “father of scientific (i.e., modern) climatology,” Reid Bryson, is also a “denyer!” So how could anyone not say, at the very least, that it isn’t settled yet? Get real.

    Also, a correction to my last post, not that it is any worse for my argument, but an error is an error, and needs to be corrected.

    ( 25 ft / 51,645 yrs ), or 1.23e-02 mm/year

    Should be [(25ft *12in/ft * 25.4mm/in)/51,645yr = 0.15 mm/yr ]

    (that’s why I don’t do this for a living)

  • yonason says:

    “who cares what an engineers opinions are on climate science?” — Tim L

    heat transfer?
    mass transfer?
    fluid dynamics?

    Nope, I can’t immagine why those silly topics would be of any importance, either!

  • yonason says:


    Being conservative, I have reworked this with only the number for the heat of fusion of ice and dropped assumptions about how much heat would have to be added to bring the temp up to zero degrees. The result, sadly to say, makes the whole process occur in only 51,645 years.

    Seriously, If pouring heat directly into the blasted thing at 100% efficiency can’t get more than ( 25 ft / 51,645 yrs ), or 1.23e-02 mm/year, then out of which orifice do they pull this thing melting in decades?


    (did I miss something?)

  • Tim L says:

    how come all the scientists quoted as denying the dangers of global warming are never from the field that they pretend to be experts in? who cares what an engineers opinions are on climate science?

  • yonason says:

    Um, just another thought.

    What do we do these days with a global warming heretic? We can’t burn them at the stake, to be sure. Hmmm – gotta think, “carbon neutral.”

    . . . . .

    I guess community service planting trees for Little Big Al – for free of course! And it’s not slavery. It’s just good resource management.

  • yonason says:


    You do realize that if Greenland melts, it’s 630000 cu mi of ice will make the oceans rise about 20 ft? But to melt that much ice would take a LOT of heat. I wonder where it would come from . . .( fade to daydream mode) . . .

    Let’s see now (I hope my b.o.t.e. calculations are close enough – most #’s are approximate), . . .

    there are 4.168e9 cu meters per cu mile.
    there are 6.3e6 cu mi of glacial ice in Greenland.
    glacial ice has a density of about 850 Kg/cubic M.

    So, that’s …

    2.232e19 Kg of ice.
    …which will require probably a minimum of 500 KJ/Kg of heat input.
    that is about 1.116E22 KJ to melt it all, roughly.

    continuing . . .

    1 joule = 0.00094781712 BTU.
    so 1.116e22 KJ corresponds to 1.058e22 BTU.
    coal has 1.6 – 2.6e7 BTU per ton.
    so we would need to burn AT LEAST 4.068e14 tons of coal.
    current world coal consumption is 5.262e9 tons per year.
    so we need to burn coal for 77,309 more years at the current rate in order to melt it (and don’t forget the ground under it is cold and would need to be heated a bit as well, requiring at least another pound or two, which I’m sure we can come up with).

    But, over that time most of that heat will have long ago radiated into space, so not all of it will be available to melt the glacier. I don’t have time or energy now to estimate that, but I am confident that the efficiency is pretty low, I mean if the planet didn’t ever loose any heat we wouldn’t be around debating this, now would we?

    If I didn’t mess up and get my powers wrong (entirely possible as late as it is), then I think we can afford to wait a few more days until we hit the panic button.

    Besides, glaciers have been melting for a LONG time already, as illustrated in this time-lapse gif.


    So, why should it surprise us that glaciers are still melting? Unless the planet is getting colder, they SHOULD still be melting.

    Oh, gee, I almost forgot. If Gore is going to make any money off his tax-free carbon-offset scam, then he can’t wait that long. So maybe we better hurry and help him out? Come on, whaddya say?

    Yeah. Let’s show da bum da door.


Leave a Reply