Al Gore, the Coming Ice Age, and the Great Global Warming Swindle

Today we follow up from the first two videos we posted last weekend from a series produced by a veteran journalist and science correspondent going by the YouTube name of Potholer54.

In the first two videos presented on Saturday, we saw a straightforward and clear-headed explanation of climate science. In these two videos we look at some of the urban myths that have grown out of the “debate” surrounding climate change. In particular, the first video takes a close look at the common cry from deniers, that scientists in the 70’s predicted a coming ice age – but did they really?

The last video takes a look at the extremes in amateur global warming debate – Al Gore and Martin Durkin – taking to task Gore’s Inconvenient Truth as flawed and at times hyperbolic while exposing many of the arguments in Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle as complete fabrications, with some of his own sources (and skeptics themselves) accusing Durkin of “near fraud.”

As Potholer54 says, his intention with these two videos is to “debunk all the mythological crap” that has grown up around climate change. “Every time I turn over a rock,” says Potholer54, “it seems like a new piece of junk science crawls out from underneath it.”

(With thanks to Tom Nelson for linking to this post and allowing his readers to view these videos… Well, you are aren’t you?)

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )
Get the latest news and commentary on climate, energy and sustainability delivered every week right to your inbox
We hate spam. Your email address will not be sold or shared with anyone else.


  1. The 2nd video gives a confused and misleading take on An Inconvenient Truth.
    It does so by documenting the known deceptions of the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ movie and
    then equating them with alleged mistakes by Gore. They aren’t the same thing and Gore’s warnings cannot be dismissed.

    The video suggests that since melting the Ice Sheets takes several hundred years, we shouldn’t concern ourselves over shackling future generations with huge burdens and a completely different planet. That is both reckless and completely immoral.

    The narrator ignores the warnings from IPCC scientists. CO2 emissions must flatten out and start declining in the next 7 yrs – decade. If we fail to do that, the atmospheric content will make it impossible to hold total warming below 2 degrees C.

    Positive feedbacks (additional warming) are already beginning to kick in from a) shrinking polar sea ice, b) declines in forests and carbon storage capacity in the tropics and temperate zones, c) declines in absorption of CO2 by the oceans, d) thawing tundra and permafrost causing new emissions of methane and CO2, e) slowing of the ThermoHaline Current and f) the recent cloud dissipation effect documented over the Pacific.

    No one should worry that a 6 meter sea level rise threatens them, or even their grandchildren’s lives. But as the last Ice Age ended, sea level rose at a rate of up to 2 meters / century. Such a rise of 6 inches / decade would put unimaginable hardship on people all over the globe. Bangladesh has 80 million people, half of them on land only a meter or two above sea level.

    If we fail to act now the scenario of meters of rise is quite possible, even likely. We risk allowing the processes of warming (and melting) to accelerate beyond our ability to control them. Once that happens it’s out of control. That is the take home message of both Al Gore and the IPCC. He attended the last two meetings of the American Geophysical Union. That is the top professional organization of climate scientists. In both cases he was greeted with standing ovations. They understand that he has brought their warnings to the public attention in a way that they could not.

    It would be nice if the political solution were to split the difference between opposite positions. But in science it often doesn’t work that way. The passengers in a car headed for a washed-out bridge can’t be saved by splitting the difference between stopping and slowing down from 50 mph.

  2. The scare tactics are working well on you sir. Wow. I’m an older woman, and I can assure you that “the coming ice age” was a real and very talked about thing in the early 1970’s. It scared my mom. I remember it well. I didn’t believe that load of crap either. What’s the difference between a climate scientist and a meteorologists? Nothing but the name. Though climate scientists have less training than meteorologists. I mean, where did Al Gore go to learn about climate science? The IPCC? The UN believes that the consensus of experts, and not science, is what we should rely on. An expert can be anything, including a college professor or a waitress, or even an ex-vice president, depending on what the topic is. Will this help align people into believing that Agenda 21 is good for them and the Earth? Absolutely. Who has been making millions off of companies that cater to green clients and Agenda 21 “sustainable developers”? Al Gore. Look it all up. Until geophysicists and astrophysicist, not climate scientists, tell me that global warming/climate change is a real threat to us and the planet, I will not believe it. Neal DeGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist) said on Bill Maher’s show “You can invest in green energy and you can invest in oil, but both of you will go broke. Mother nature will do what she wants. Who are we to decide?” And I ask you, who is deciding this for us?

    • Your utter confusion regarding climate science, climate scientists, and science in general is apparent, ma’am. My suggestion is if you trust DeGrasse Tsyon, then you contact him directly for his view on climate change, climate science, and his scientist colleagues. Best of luck.

      • Thomas Schueneman So mr chicken little, even though the brilliant self certified climatologists said their perfect climate models of the 1980’s predicted a minimum of 10 ft rise at mean low tide by oceans, not one of you LIARS has explained why its 30 yrs since & NO SUCH THING HAS HAPPENED?
        I never expected that it would happen because with every scare tactic you phony scientists tried, you also sent out the cry for donations to health poor nations recover from the devastation! NO DEVASTATION, SO WHERE DID YOU HIDE THE MONEY, THIEF?

        • Mr. Al Walker – So, let’s see if we can unwrap this hilarious little screed of yours shall we?

          1) “Self-certified climatologists.” So do you mean climate scientists? And they’re “self-certified” are they? OK. Or do you mean me? I’m looking somewhere, anywhere, where I claim to be a climatologist. Nope isn’t there. I’ve had quite a few discussions with climate scientists, but who the heck knows what you mean. Doesn’t matter. Let’s continue…

          2) All these people you describe had “perfect” climate models from the “1980’s.” (that’s exactly how they described them, right? “Perfect.” And they all predicted a 10 foot sea level rise by the early 21st century. A “ten foot sea level rise” hasn’t happened and “we” all lied and haven’t explained to open, inquiring minds such as yours why it hasn’t.

          3) Of, course, you knew better all along. In fact, we self-certified climatologists made our models and then personally asked for money “to health (sic) poor nations recover from the devastation” when in fact no poor (or rich) nation has suffered any devastation from any natural disaster. No devastating floods or storm surges. Right?

          4) Of course, all that money was sent directly to “us” self-certified climatologists (without any reason, no floods, storm surges or sea level rise), so it’s logical that we’re all thieves.

          Here’s a question for you. In theory at least, somebody paid for your education. Even if you never made it past the eighth grade, at least taxpayers chipped in something so you could hobble together a sentence. And yet you proceed to press on with this misinformed, tiresome and willful ignorance. So where are you hiding the money provided for what should have been your education? Thief I say!!

          It’s one thing to have legitimate questions about climate science and climate modeling. Your professed view of how the world works is pathetic. Aren’t you embarrassed? You should be.

          Have a nice day.

          • Way to attack and shame, instead of answering the question. You Are an elitist pig.

          • Well, “anonymous” isn’t that ironic.

            Exactly what question wasn’t answered that prompted your “elitist pig” comment? Who attacked whom?

            A litany of accusations and complete falsehoods about climate scientists and climate science in general, followed by an accusation that somehow I am a thief. A serious question never asked (at least he was brave enough to leave a name).

            And my response calling it for what it is just galls you doesn’t it? Too bad.

          • Mr. Schueneman – Are you suggesting that there is such a thing as a certification process for climate science? And when did that become some sort of recognized specialty?

            And we all here know that our “climate scientists” do no such thing as say they have perfect models. They merely say “our predictions from our mode” from which the True Believers take that as meaning “The God’s Honest Truth”.

            We were forced to listen to story that Hurricane Irene was just an example of what was to come from Global Warming.

            Almost the ONLY way to gain research funding on Climate Change is be make SURE that it is understood what results will be discovered.

            Climate change is not even proven and yet you are telling us that you are a climate scientist as if any were substantiated by results.

          • I’m not really sure what you mean by “a certification process for climate science.” I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think you know what you mean either. But yes, climatology is most definitely a field of scientific study.
            As for hurricane Irene… Huh? Okay. Irene, nor any particular extreme weather event, can be conclusively and directly linked to global warming. As for the trend of extreme weather events, you might take a clue from the insurance industry.
            As for funding of climate science, I think what you were trying to say is that all these bogus climate scientists have to say global warming is real to keep their funding in place. Not sure it came out that way (just trying to help you communicate your point). But just like the previous comment about global cooling in the 70’s, it a tired old soundbite that really means nothing, though I suspect you beg to differ.
            Finally, nowhere on this site or anywhere else do I claim to be a climate scientist. I have met and talked with several at length (and no, I don’t mean Al Gore), but how you took that away from anything said here is… baffling. Please have a nice day.

    • I am 70 years old and an electronics engineer that did very much scientific work on medical instrumentation. I too remember very well the numbers of people crying about the coming ice age that was not debatable.

      But suddenly when it become inconvenient for the True Believers there never was any such cry of global cooling.

      • Thanks for your comment reminding us how scientists in the 70’s warned that Earth might be facing a “global cooling.” Do you, by chance, have a notion upon what evidence this assertion was made? Was the “cry” about global cooling based on anthropogenic forcing or a suggestion that natural climate variability (aka climate change) was the cause for concern? It’s important to get beyond the sound bite of this factoid before any meaningful discussion could take place. I take issue with the assertion that anyone has denied these concerns expressed in the 70’s. Conflating this to present day concerns about climate change is probably the oldest (and most worn) meme in the book. But thanks for hauling it out once again. With all your experience, you likely remember that scientists have been expressing some level of concern about the impact from greenhouse gas emissions on atmospheric and climate dynamics since the early 20th century, right?

Leave a Reply