6 ms·

Al Gore literally never said that

vorpalhex 4y ago
His prediction was that Manhattan would be under water, before the year 2026. > When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?…Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”
- defrost 4y ago
  > Weekend flooding left cars submerged in New York ... ( 19 July 2022 ) > New York City is highly vulnerable to flooding from coastal storms due to its intensively used waterfront and its extensive coastal geography. Floods have the potential to destroy homes and businesses, impair infrastructure, and threaten human safety. With climate change and sea level rise, these risks are expected to increase in the future, but will most adversely affect low-lying neighborhoods. - https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-studies/climate-resiliency/flood-risk-nyc-info-brief.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-stud... Looks like he was correct about the increased risks from storm surges et al as a result of climate change.
  - 77pt77 4y ago
    That's in no way what he said. You are being dishonest.
    - defrost 4y ago
      He's a US politician .. hardly a climate expert. He was relaying his understanding of the general predictions he'd been told and took things a little too literally on an accelerated time scale. Increasingly underwater increasingly frequently as storm surges increase and mean water levels increase leading to greater extremes is a complicated sound bite. "New York will be underwater" is simpler and turned out to be true in a literal sense. I literally have zero knowledge of what he has said, I'm not in the US, I didn't watch his film, and I wouldn't watch a US political figure for an explaination of anything technical when there are better and more primary sources.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        Al Gore received a nobel peace prize for his climate work.
  - jjcon 4y ago
    I mean New York has had big storms multiple times in its history - that is nothing new and I certainly don't interpret that as being what he intended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-in-60-was-the-last-bad-one.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-... etc etc etc If we are that generous in interpreting him everything he says then becomes non-falsifiable.
    - refurb 4y ago
      And people wonder why there are climate deniers. Trying to talk your way out an prediction that was clearly false just makes it look even worse.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        You appear to arguing against a post that supports your position? Al Gore's prediction is likely wrong (we'll know in 2026), but it did have an important qualifier: "if nothing changes". That to me implies BAU and emissions continuing to steadily rise over that intervening 15-20 year period. In fact they did start to level off not long after that prediction was made though it's a stretch to claim for certain that's the reason the WTC memorial is not, in fact, now underwater. If he had made the prediction for, say, the year 2076 it may have had more scientific merit (but arguably little ability to convince anyone of the urgency of the situation).
        refurb 4y ago
        Ex post facto rationalization. If his prediction does come true and someone says “but you said BAU but we actually cut emissions”, everyone will wave hands around saying “that doesn’t really matter the prediction was accurate”. Heads you win, tails you win.
        wizofaus 4y ago
macinjosh 4y ago
He did claim that the peak Mt. Kilimanjaro would be permanently snow-free by like 2016 and yet it is still plenty snowy on top 6 years later still. He is a liar and also a sexual predator, but he some how escaped #MeToo. https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/07/why-the-masseuse-s-story-about-al-gore-rings-true.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/07/why-the-masseuse-s-...
- defrost 4y ago
  "Plenty of snow" is subjective, in truth there is less and less and less as time goes on. https://tunza.eco-generation.org/file/kilimanjaro-melting.jpg https://tunza.eco-generation.org/file/kilimanjaro-melting.jp...
autoexec 4y ago
Even if he had, Al Gore isn't a scientist. X person said Y is a distraction because people can say anything. There are countless people and organizations that twist statistics or misrepresent science to suit their political ends, but it doesn't necessarily make the science flawed. Sometimes it's just misinterpreted, or cherry picked, or outright invented to support a political opinion, but that's not a problem with science as much as it is a problem with politics. It's a lot more worrisome when you have scientists taking money to falsify data or faking results to push their own political agenda. We expect politicians to lie to us, but when science does it that risks setting back our collective understanding of the world we live in and can keep us from the truth for a very long time.

His prediction was that Manhattan would be under water, before the year 2026. > When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?…Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

defrost 4y ago
> Weekend flooding left cars submerged in New York ... ( 19 July 2022 ) > New York City is highly vulnerable to flooding from coastal storms due to its intensively used waterfront and its extensive coastal geography. Floods have the potential to destroy homes and businesses, impair infrastructure, and threaten human safety. With climate change and sea level rise, these risks are expected to increase in the future, but will most adversely affect low-lying neighborhoods. - https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-studies/climate-resiliency/flood-risk-nyc-info-brief.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-stud... Looks like he was correct about the increased risks from storm surges et al as a result of climate change.
- 77pt77 4y ago
  That's in no way what he said. You are being dishonest.
  - defrost 4y ago
    He's a US politician .. hardly a climate expert. He was relaying his understanding of the general predictions he'd been told and took things a little too literally on an accelerated time scale. Increasingly underwater increasingly frequently as storm surges increase and mean water levels increase leading to greater extremes is a complicated sound bite. "New York will be underwater" is simpler and turned out to be true in a literal sense. I literally have zero knowledge of what he has said, I'm not in the US, I didn't watch his film, and I wouldn't watch a US political figure for an explaination of anything technical when there are better and more primary sources.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Al Gore received a nobel peace prize for his climate work.
- jjcon 4y ago
  I mean New York has had big storms multiple times in its history - that is nothing new and I certainly don't interpret that as being what he intended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-in-60-was-the-last-bad-one.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-... etc etc etc If we are that generous in interpreting him everything he says then becomes non-falsifiable.
  - refurb 4y ago
    And people wonder why there are climate deniers. Trying to talk your way out an prediction that was clearly false just makes it look even worse.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      You appear to arguing against a post that supports your position? Al Gore's prediction is likely wrong (we'll know in 2026), but it did have an important qualifier: "if nothing changes". That to me implies BAU and emissions continuing to steadily rise over that intervening 15-20 year period. In fact they did start to level off not long after that prediction was made though it's a stretch to claim for certain that's the reason the WTC memorial is not, in fact, now underwater. If he had made the prediction for, say, the year 2076 it may have had more scientific merit (but arguably little ability to convince anyone of the urgency of the situation).
      - refurb 4y ago
        Ex post facto rationalization. If his prediction does come true and someone says “but you said BAU but we actually cut emissions”, everyone will wave hands around saying “that doesn’t really matter the prediction was accurate”. Heads you win, tails you win.
        wizofaus 4y ago

macinjosh 4y ago

He did claim that the peak Mt. Kilimanjaro would be permanently snow-free by like 2016 and yet it is still plenty snowy on top 6 years later still. He is a liar and also a sexual predator, but he some how escaped #MeToo. https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/07/why-the-masseuse-s-story-about-al-gore-rings-true.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/07/why-the-masseuse-s-...

defrost 4y ago
"Plenty of snow" is subjective, in truth there is less and less and less as time goes on. https://tunza.eco-generation.org/file/kilimanjaro-melting.jpg https://tunza.eco-generation.org/file/kilimanjaro-melting.jp...

autoexec 4y ago

Even if he had, Al Gore isn't a scientist. X person said Y is a distraction because people can say anything. There are countless people and organizations that twist statistics or misrepresent science to suit their political ends, but it doesn't necessarily make the science flawed. Sometimes it's just misinterpreted, or cherry picked, or outright invented to support a political opinion, but that's not a problem with science as much as it is a problem with politics. It's a lot more worrisome when you have scientists taking money to falsify data or faking results to push their own political agenda. We expect politicians to lie to us, but when science does it that risks setting back our collective understanding of the world we live in and can keep us from the truth for a very long time.