Gore hustled them in Melbourne

As the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne wound down, it was clear that the folks in attendance were still in awe of Al Gore’s big speech on Thursday.

I spoke to one attendee from Britain who excitedly exclaimed, “Only a person with their head in the sand could question what Gore is saying!”

Head in the sand, really?

Gore’s film was mainly a litany of naturally occurring extreme weather events that were randomly put together without any historical context.  They would have occurred whether you drive a car and use electricity… or not.

Good theater? Yes.  Convincing?  Hardly.

On the CFACT team in Melbourne is widely respected science blogger Joanne Nova.  She wrote a powerful article about Gore’s speech in which she noted:

“What I saw was nearly a whole hour of primal weather-porn – gratuitous, non-stop, scenes from the apocalypse, glowing clouds boiled about incandescent forests, and giant drains in the sky emptied massive clouds in a flash. Glaciers crumbled before our eyes.  Poor victims were stuck in boiling tar on hot roads, they crawled out of mud … Biblical is the word.”

Far from us from having our heads in the sand, Joanne said it was the attendees to the EcoCity gathering that were playing the role of ostrich:

“Gullible, naïve devotees gushed, awed, and murmured collective fear as Al spun a story of record doom and disaster with a google hit-list of extreme weather snaps. Al offered almost no graphs, long term data, or paleostudies. Few in the audience seemed to realize it was just a grab bag of the latest disaster-fest, and if a million people had had mobile phones in 10,000BC, the footage from then might have looked exactly the same or even worse, as Gore milked pretty much every weather event in the news to sell the salvation of renewables.”

Ostriches may not really stick their heads in the sand, but Leftists do.

One good thing about Gore’s appearance at this conference was it provided an opportunity for Marc Morano to present him with CFACT’s groundbreaking documentary Climate Hustle.

While Gore didn’t take it, his refusal, along with Marc’s inciteful reporting on the content of Gore’s presentation, sparked media curiosity around the globe and boosted coverage of our activities here.

In addition to the media hits I reported on yesterday that included Fox News, UK Daily Mail, and Drudge Report, this story was also recently picked up by World Net DailyAustralian Herald SunIndependent Journal Reviewthe Blaze and the Daily Caller.

More interviews are being scheduled for our next stops in Brisbane and Sydney where we’ll be showing Climate Hustle to already sold out audiences.

I’d like to give special thanks to our supporters who have made our work here possible.

You are the best!  Without you we could accomplish nothing, and the scheming and plotting of those on the radical Left would go unchallenged.

The Left has seized upon environmentalism as their ticket to wealth and power.

They want to wreck our energy economy, cram us into compact “EcoCities” and throttle down freedom and prosperity for generations.

Yet, because of you we’re making progress.

Together let’s beat back this threat to our freedoms and keep the future bright.



About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • Immortal600

    Al Gore is a fraud, plain and simple. He is no scientist and doesn’t have a clue how climate dynamics really works.

    • Concerned

      Exactly. In fact he doesn’t care as long as he can distribute his own CO2 around the world and collect money. Although I have not seen his speech, I’m sure Joanne Nova summary is spot on.
      Gore believe strongly in the carbon tax as long as he can run the Carbon Exchange that reaps the profits. The sad part is that everyone knows that a carbon tax will penalize the poor and line the pockets of the rich, while spreading lies around the world.
      If global cooling really hits (as forecast by 2030), it will be of interest what these people will do. We know that they will claim AGC is caused by CO2 since it failed to cause AGW.

      • Ian5

        “If global cooling really hits (as forecast by 2030)”

        >> You are misinformed. No credible climate scientist is forecasting global cooling in 2030.

        • Concerned

          There are at least 10 different creditable scientists / organizations who are predicting cooling to occur over the next 30 years. The Russian team has been predicting this for many years, and with the sun at its lowest activity level in the last 100 years, I have no reason to doubt their prediction.
          The only correlation to global warming has been our sun (NOT CO2 since CO2 always trails temperature increase). The variation of our sun affects many different things that all tie to the surface global temperature including visible light irradiance (varies with earth’s orbit and tilt), UV irradiance, El Nino, La Nina, High-Pressure regions, Low-Pressure regions, cosmic-ray-flux, PDO, AMO, and repeated cycles at 11-years, 22-years, 40 years, 60-70 years, 100 years, 200 years, and numerous longer cycles. We are now close to the 200 year cooling cycle.
          – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/russian-scientists-dismiss-co2-forcing-predict-decades-of-cooling-connect-cosmic-ray-flux-to-climate/#sthash.J8vljxAW.fSviTkfW.dpuf

          • Ian5

            10 climate scientists! And cites Pierre Gosselin’s silly no tricks zone website. Actually Norman Page (one of he references provided is not a climate scientist).

            • Concerned

              These are not my forecasts but appear to have more merit than existing climate models. My answer is “follow the sun” and perhaps in the next 10 years you will have the answer.
              Existing climate models have failed every year for the last 20 years, so we know they are wrong.
              If you cannot understand what causes El Nino and La Nina and you cannot include the effects of clouds in your models, you have a real problem with the AGW scenario.

              • Ian5

                “Existing climate models have failed every year for the last 20 years, so we know they are wrong.”

                >> Untrue, unsubstantiated statement. A talking point of disinformation professionals.

                • Concerned

                  Totally true and totally substantiated. Simply provide a single IPCC supported model that has matched the observed temperature data. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44e965640618c2b9d43b21e828edbeb09856d0f6f4cbdc086cefb83628738cd6.png

                  • Ian5

                    laughable that you would present that silly graph that has never been published. intended to mislead and misinform:

                    • Concerned

                      Yes, we likewise laugh at the IPCC Climate Model results that do no match measured data. As in any scientific discussion, just show me the data and show how it supports the hypothesis. Show me the performance of the IPCC models since 1979.
                      The satellite data is gathered and presented on behalf of NASA and is recognized at the most accurate WW global temperature. The above graph has been published in many different articles over many years, with most publications beginning in the early 2000’s and continuing to the present. It is easy to see in this satellite data, there has been very little global warming since 2000. As you can also see, the data is more comprehensive than other databases since it includes two different satellite sets of temperature recordings as well as 4 balloon datasheets that further verify the satellite record in selected locations. As you well know, global warming is NOT just the surface record, but includes what is happening in the entire troposphere.
                      The satellite record only started in the late 70’s, but is the most accurate and repeatable dataset available. Because the satellite data also includes data at different altitudes, it significantly reduces the dramatic effects of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects — graph is attached — that influences nearly 50% of the land based temperature measurements that are difficult to remove from the record. Also many different problems are associated with the “siting of each measurement site.” Satellite data does not need to “homoginize” the data as has been implemented in nearly all other datasets. All of this is well documented, particularly in the United States. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9d2b216142e506041457d387c89ca1eeb03743d4e9f6d1aad9b2dd0c0ce809a.jpg
                      Unlike the thermometer based data set, the satellite data graph provide the resulting time series of LT, MT (mid-troposphere, from MSU2/AMSU5), TP (our new “tropopause level” product, from MSU3/AMSU7) and LS (lower stratosphere, from MSU4/AMSU9). From a global warming perspective, it is just as important to know what is happening in the upper atmosphere as well as land-based surface temperatures.
                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/310b2a804b330dd53a68541af4045c069f5cafc90ed11dc034ebfb3145dbd0e0.gif

        • Francisco Machado

          You make an obvious point: Since the AGW cabal does not believe to be creditable any scientist that disagrees with their doctrinal articles of faith, any scientist or researcher forecasting global cooling is not a creditable climate scientist. Demonizing dissenters is a characteristic of ideology, not of science.