Al Gore's five loaves and two fishes

Not content with having invented the internet, the great Climate Science communicator Al Gore appears to have developed still more miraculous skills of late: the ability to turn 17,000 into 8.6 million – just like that.

The figures refer to the number of “views” for Gore’s special “24 Hours Of ManBearPig” which this column helped celebrate the other day. Gore claims that as many as 8.6 million flocked to his thrilling festival of climate fear; but a nasty cruel man called Charles the Moderator at Watts Up With That? has “done the math” and reckons the figure is probably more like 17,000. And that, he believes, is a generous estimate. (H/T John from CA).

So whom are we to trust? An evil climate denying website run by evil climate deniers? Or a loving family man who has selflessly made…

(to read more, click here)

10 thoughts on “Al Gore's five loaves and two fishes”

  1. The 8.6 million is more than likely ‘hits’ rather than ‘visits’. Hits as we all know are the digital excahnges that orrur when web page element loads or is accessed. A single web page ‘visit’ for example can generate 10 or more ‘hits’ depending on the content (i.e. images, Javacript Applets, etc.). So, base on the stats I keep for a variety of pages, we’re looking at 500 or so ‘hits’ per individual visit; not an uncommon number.

    Does the 17,ooo include repeat visitors perhaps?

    – dunno.

  2. having spent a few minutes reading this shit-stirring, sensationalist, baseless tripe i somehow find myself loathing you – congratulations, as i assume that is the idea. and no, i’m not a “liberal”. do you actually believe any of this crap or are you secretly just wishing you were clarkson?

  3. Sir, regarding your hit piece on Al Gore,

    I am continually amazed at media sluts like you who print lies and support falsities from sources unknown.

    Your opening line “Not content with having invented the internet” is just pathetic that it makes you look like a chump who doesn’t know what he is talking about along with the other buffoons who criticize while sitting in their arm chairs and that have accomplished nothing in their sad little lives.

    Al Gore played a significant and beneficial effect on initiatives that paved the way for the internet to flourish. No, he didn’t ‘write code’ but that is not the point.

    If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “created” the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

    His original statement did not say the word ‘create’ or ‘invent’ which his critics like to poke at-while self serving his statement went like this:

    During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

    Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated that “we don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he ‘invented’ the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet”

    Does that sound like someone who should be labeled as someone who ‘invented’ the internet? f*** no. It’s unfair and biased when people report UNTRUTHS – such as you have done in your opening line. Research your facts before you press submit.

  4. Forget it Craig, you’re arguing with a man who hasn’t time to do science, but finds plenty to attack it. Same with accuracy and facts, they’re just details that get in the way of a good rant.

  5. I would be very careful in defending someone like Gore, you may regret this in the near future when all is public about e.g. the Global Warming scam.

  6. I nominate Gore for a Nobel Prize in statistical manipulation, and for a honorary PhD in climatic movie making. Gordon, bribing the “peer reviewers” with research contracts is indeed having “time to do science”, but it’s always false because has a massive bandwaggon of lefties in the Guardian and BBC behind it.

    Even if a bandwaggon starts out as a sensible idea, like the idea that CO2 would heat a greenhouse by trapping warm air, it will become corrupted pretty quick when it becomes a religion. E.g., as soon as you realize that the normal humidity (uncondensed water vapour) in air is several grams per cubic metre and it makes the greenhouse effect of CO2 trivial by comparison, you’re cover is blown, because water vapour is the controlling factor.

    Why isn’t there a positive-feedback induced runaway greenhouse effect from water vapour? If its a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, why don’t we try to dehumidify the air to stop the “risk” of natural global warming:

    water vapour absorbs sunshine -> rising temperature causes more water to evaporate -> more heat absorbed by water vapour -> more evaporation of water

    It’s obvious this is a —-ing lie because when the water vapour absorbs sunshine, it gets warm and doesn’t stay put. Instead, it expands because it’s hot, and hot air obeys the law of buoyancy by Archimedes, and rises like a balloon. Then the warm moist air condenses when it reaches cool air a few thousand feet up, producing clouds, and maybe rain. So this “positive feedback” from water vapour quickly reverses itself, because the cloud cover is a cooling – negative feedback.

    The evaporation of water and the formation of cloud cover as a negative feedback (temperature regulator) effect is independent of the source of the initial heating. It makes no difference what is causing the air near the surface to warm up, whether it is due to natural humidity or CO2 from Gore’s mouth. Regardless, the response of the oceans to increased surface temperature is that the top 100 metres (above the thermocline) warms slightly, increasing the evaporation rate, so more warm moist air rises to form clouds, which counteract the global warming.

    It’s a fact that none of the vast array of IPCC models include negative feedback from water vapour. All assume warm moist air doesn’t rise to form clouds, but instead hangs around near the surface, just like air trapped by the glass ceiling in a greenhouse. The “greenhouse” effect is a brilliant name for the lie of Gore et al. Their theory is indeed a greenhouse effect, which is artificial and is not how nature works.

    Of course, all the peer-reviewed published evidence proving this by Roy Spencer et al. is just ignored, obfuscated, or dealt with the “shoot the messenger” Gestapo, the dogmatic believers that they can see an invisible glass-roofed greenhouse where cloud cover from evaporation doesn’tt regulate temperature, a modern version pseudoscience replacing the seven “crystaline celestial spheres” which Aristotle claimed and believed surrounded the Earth, carrying the stars, moon, the planets. Sorry James, for explaining this again but I have to keep on trying to get the message clear, until people understand the facts.

  7. To make my point clear, please see Dr Roy Spencer’s graph comparing CERES global climate satellite observed heat reflected by Earth’s cloud cover from 2000-2010, to the 14 IPCC model predictions which are, as I explained, physically completely pseudoscience or f—ing lies, in his latest blog post at

    Notice that after a surface temperature peak, Earth’s cloud cover increases: the Earth begins reflecting more sunlight back into space. This is due to clouds, which are white, and reflect heat. Cloud cover increases after a temperature rise, and this has a cooling effect, thus regulating climate in a way that is totally missed out from IPCC propaganda models.

    Also note that the IPCC obfuscation technique which Spencer explains. They hide behind a “landscape” of 14 different models, and average these models. All the models assume purely positive water vapour feedback on CO2, ignoring the negative feedback from increased reflection of sunlight by cloud cover which increases due to evaporation. But by having 14 models, they can assert they have taken account of a wide range of possibilities. This is like string theory pseudoscience, where they have 10^500 parallel universes, and believe that makes it likely that the theory covers all possibilities and can’t all be wrong. If you miss out the crucial global climate temperature regulation mechanism from all models, they’re all wrong, and the trick of having an average from many wrong curves to make a result that looks democratic and fair is as pseudoscience and misleadingly exact as determining the length of the Emperor of China’s nose by averaging a vast number of ignorant guesses.

Comments are closed.