by Ian Angus
Canada’s National Post was positively gleeful. The New York Times (which the Post normally views as a hotbed of liberalism) criticized Al Gore (not only a liberal but a global warming fanatic) for fudging his numbers:
[T]he New York Times (of all papers) ran a front page story questioning the “facts” contained in Mr. Gore’s movie. For instance, Mr. Gore claims sea levels will rise by as much as six metres in the coming decades due to planetary meltdown, when, in fact, even the United Nations’ global warming committee — as alarmist as any scientific committee could be — predicts the rise will be no more than 40 centimetres. (“Editorial: Al Gore’s Rough Ride,” National Post, March 22, 2007)
With very little research (whatever happened to investigative journalism?) the Times and the Post could have learned that:
- Gore’s estimate included the impact of melt water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The IPCC report excluded it.
- The IPCC forecast goes to 2095. But global warming won’t stop then, and neither does Gore’s movie.
In short, we’re dealing with apples and oranges. But the denial industry never lets the facts get in the way of a good smear.
In my next post, I’ll consider an issue that the New York Times and National Post completely ignored:
- Did the IPCC report underestimate the rising water problem?
- If so, why?