He tried to describe research, and got it wrong. That’s going to happen some of the time when a politician (or any other non-expert) tries to describe science. It’s not a big deal unless they’re doing it consistently or intentionally.

The problem is the statement seriously misrepresents what Gore said, which was in turn a misrepresentation of the current state of research

His actual statement:

He added: “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

Gore cited findings from climatologist Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School (here).

However, it appears he mis-stated the forecast, according to reporting at the time.

In an interview with The Times published on Dec. 15, 2009 (here), Dr Maslowski said: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

According to the report, Gore’s office acknowledged after his speech that the 75% figure was used by Dr Maslowski as a “ballpark figure” in a conversation with the vice president several years before COP15.

No, I’m saying that it isn’t possible significantly shift peoples’ diets to olive oil from other fats and oils because olive oil consumption is supply-constrained.

The drunk-at-work problem had a lot more witnesses

It’s more that having some idea of what they’re going to go after first and how they’re going go do so makes it easier to be ready to fight back

Historic low (since 1975 when records were first kept) in terms of emissions per mile, for motor vehicles sold in the US in model year 2023.

graph source

We can’t take the risk to zero — but we can reduce it pretty sharply. And that would be a big deal.

Olive oil doesn’t scale to match anything near current human consumption — a big chunk of what’s sold as olive oil is already counterfeit.

They’re comparing actual exposure to estimated risk at that exposure. So no, we’re not doing nearly enough to limit exposure, which is the whole point.

Yes, worldwide emissions are still rising — largely because of emissions growth outside the US.

And no, it’s not a result of “dodgy accounting” — it’s because of how electrical generation has changed, with a sharp drop in the use of coal.

Yeah, inland areas transition to a thermokarst landscape, while places next to the ocean can just disappear entirely.

It depends intensely on what you mean by “thermal runaway” — we can absolutely create a world which will support a much smaller population; we can’t really create a world where we boil off the oceans like Venus.

The author literally wrote one of the commonly-used intro texts about climate.

They’re well aware of feedbacks, and that’s part of the standard understanding that scientists have.

Actually, the US has cut emissions already. Just not to zero, which is where it needs to go.

The court decision is indeed one to limit the use of seawalls to protect against property damage. There are limited cases where they’ll still be used, but it’s not going to be too widespread in California as a result.

And he intimidates everybody around him to hide it:

Reached for comment, the author of the letter said, “If you print that, I will deny I wrote it.” When he was reminded that it had been sent from the same personal e-mail account that he still uses, he said, “I don’t care. I’ll just say it never happened.”

The problem us that private seawalls have the effect of destroying public beaches, which is why California restricts them.

Yeah. Been violated a handful of times (eg: during LA riots) but there are almost no court cases about it

Busy surrendering their third amendment rights of course.