For Overstated Claims, Gore, Tesla Upbraided By NWS, NHTSA Respectively

barlevg writes "In a recent interview, former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore made a bold claim, that man-made global warming was causing hurricanes to be formed of such severity that 'they're adding a 6' to the hurricane scale, going on to say that 'The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.' In response, the National Weather Service has responded that they have no plans to add a 'doomsday Category 6' to their rating scale: 'No, we're not pursuing any such change. I'm also not sure who VP Gore means by "they,"' also noting that 'Category 5 has no ceiling: it includes hurricanes with top sustained winds of 157 mph and higher.' Furthermore, a recently leaked United Nations climate assessment claims only 'low confidence' of a link between human activity and increased hurricane severity and that this is likely due to increased human settlement in coastal areas and other regions vulnerable to natural disasters." Along similar lines, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that Tesla's Model S, no matter how safe it is, doesn't get any special grade inflation: there's no "5.4" score (as the company did in a press release this week), because that's just not how the NHTSA keeps score. (Hat tip to reader cartechboy.)

Comments

New tag needed:

[Anonymous Coward]

incomprehensibleheadline

Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Captain_Loser]

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
- Newt Gingrich, 2000

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[binarylarry]

He didn't invent the Internet, he invented the Algorithm!

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

It hasn't fallen victim. It just takes great glee in perpetuating that erroneous meme.

When friends of friends call me to complain that "the Internet isn't working right", I tell them to "blame it on Gore".

"He invented it, after all."

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the Al Gore Rhythm is quite boring. Sleng teng it is NOT.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Trailer Trash]

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Yes, I was watching the interview where he said that, and he did say it. The problem is that he uses the idiomatic phrase "took the initiative". One cannot "take" a Congressional initiative. The phrase literally means "I did this".

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+initiative

"take the initiative (to do something)- to activate oneself to do something even if one has not been asked to do it."

He was saying that he created the internet. I agree with Newt that Gore was a major early contributor to funding the internet. But he didn't create it.

If you would read the intro and accompanying texts with an open mind you would realize that the guy is a world-class bullshitter, and claiming to have created the internet fits into the rest of what he does.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[erice]

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
- Newt Gingrich, 2000

He didn't do that either. Al Gore was involved in the creation of NREN, the successor to Arpanet and NSFnet and the immediate predecessor to the commercialized Internet we have today. But the Internet already existed and had for several years, dating no later than 1983, with the creation of a gateway between Arpanet and CSnet.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Quasimodem]

So where on the perineum does that put you, closer to an asshole or a prick?

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Charliemopps]

Fucking bullshit. Teenagers like me wanting easier access to porn invented the internet. When we found out we could get porn without an embarrassing trip to the gas station, pay-per-view bills or the local smut shop, the fucking doors flew off the BBS's. The entire information came to be because hordes of horny 16yr olds wanted to masturbate in their basements in peace.

And now they can. Technology is great.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Darinbob]

I was "censoring" a coworker's access to Usenet by not subscribing to certain adult newsgroups. Not too long after he left and started up one of the very first ISPs in the country with a shell account and full Usenet access. So in a sense, I helped incentivize the internet.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Darinbob]

I've heard that the Al Gore rhythm method is also boring.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Oh, bullshit, he's a shitbag politician trying to take credit for something. But he's Saint Gore so people rush to defend him. Amazing how political bias works!

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, bullshit, he's a shitbag politician trying to take credit for something. But he's Saint Gore so people rush to defend him. Amazing how political bias works!

Right, because Newt Gingrich is a staunch defender of the democrats.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[slimjim8094]

Perhaps you'll take the word of Vint Cerf, you know, the guy who invented TCP/IP?

[T]here 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.

and

His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit.

He was instrumental in getting money to the NCSA, which used it to create the Mosaic web browser:

Gore's legislation also helped fund the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, where a team of programmers, including Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, created the Mosaic Web browser, the commercial Internet's technological springboard. 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'

But I suppose those guys are just spouting bullshit too.

Amazing how the first people to shout about "political bias" are usually the only ones displaying it. If you have even the slightest shred of honesty, you'll look into the actual events and admit that you've been spouting nonsense - because even if you disagree with him on politics, shouldn't it at least be for... well, you know, actual reasons?

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Anonymous Coward]

you helped "incentivize the internet" as much as a place providing unsatisfactory food helped someone start a restaurant.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[nharmon]

Al Gore's precise words: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Gore didn't say his initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the internet. He didn't say he helped commercialize the Internet. Nor did he say anything about funding computer initiatives. He literally said that he "took the initiative in

• creating

the Internet".

If you want to argue that he made important contributions, be my guest. I won't disagree. But it is amazing that anybody on Slashdot would defend a politician taking credit for decades of scientific achievement because said politician, towards the end, introduced some bills to fund it and commercialize it. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that those who do are politically biased.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[internerdj]

He isn't making erroneous claims. He is inventing; the important people in the fields just don't realize the truth yet.

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he said:

"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."

from Snopes

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[DiEx-15]

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Probably spent too much time on 4Chan...

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[antdude]

Swoooooooooosh!

Re:Erroneous claims by the inventor of the net?

[slimjim8094]

Ah. So the thing is, he did create the Internet with a capital I. Before that, it was the NSFnet and the ARPANET before that. What made it the Internet was that it was something the average person could actually connect to and use. Read the terms of use of the NSFnet - they're not at all conducive to the average person getting online. Even if a dial-up ISP would've been allowed to connect to it, there'd be nothing for the average person to do with it.

Nobody is claiming Gore had anything to do with the technology. But the difference between the NSFnet and Internet we know today has nothing to do with technology. Gore's contribution was realizing "hey, this could be huge for everybody else too" and making it happen. Reading Bush Sr.'s remarks on signing the bill is very interesting. Some quotes: "It holds the promise of changing society as much as the other great inventions of the 20th century, including the telephone, air travel, and radio and TV."

Gore really was the one guy who made everyone (outside of tech) realize that that sort of stuff would actually be possible if both companies and average people could connect their computers to a global network. Remember, in 1991, basically nobody even had a computer - but there they are talking about how this would be important well into the next century and already putting it on par with the telephone (which seems obvious now). So it's pretty fair to call it a remarkable bit of foresight.

Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

A Category 1 hurricane brought New York City to its KNEES.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[MightyYar]

The Category system only measures wind speed, not storm surge, track, or the velocity of the storm system, or even how much rain it will dump. A Category 1 coming ashore during a full-moon high tide can do a lot more damage than a hurricane with higher winds.Arguably, Sandy was not even a hurricane when it came ashore. And a year before there was Irene that deluged inland areas of New York and North Jersey with amazing amounts of rainfall. It came ashore with winds similar to Sandy in almost the same part of NJ, but did very little damage to that area.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[gagol]

More like "to its ankles". Buildings were not washed away, it was a minor inconvenience in a highly populated area.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Richy_T]

Yes. But it was in New York so it actually mattered.

(If you didn't see the sarcasm there, you're probably a New Yorker).

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Antipater]

I don't know...have you ever been brought to your ankles? If something brings you to your knees, you can just stand right back up again. But roll an ankle, and man, that's like a week of limping and constant pain!

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But it was in New York so it actually mattered.

(If you didn't see the sarcasm there, you're probably a New Yorker).

You probably meant someone from New York City. New York is a state. Not that any idiot that lives in NYC understands that. I mean they have the nerve to call then football teams the New York **** when they play in New Jersey. That hurricane should have wiped that wretched hell hole off the make making the world a better place.

Sincerely
A Buffalonian

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[geekoid]

so complete shut down, billions in damage, compete destruction of 100s of automobiles is now a minor conveniences?

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

so complete shut down, billions in damage, compete destruction of 100s of automobiles is now a minor conveniences?

Yes when you take that Billions divided by the population, it works out to a minor inconvenience per capita.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[oodaloop]

Yeah, if your ankles are 9 feet off the ground. Not only were buildings washed away, in north Jersey, entire towns were swept out to sea. In Brooklyn, a neighborhood was mostly underwater and on fire. There were boats in people's driveways where their cars were before. It cost billions in damage. This was a helluva lot more than an inconvenience to those who lived there. Maybe it was in inconvenience to you.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Score Whore]

$20 and a convenient alley will get New York City on its knees.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the average population (myself included living in the Southwest) is not aware of these facts. All they know is Category 1 - bad, Category 5 - Disaster. Thus it makes perfect sense, from a political/push-global-warming-agenda for Gore to make up things like this, because comments like this generate a Category 5 populist hysteria shit-storm.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Fun fact: New York doesn't have many alleys

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound bitter.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not an inconvenience to me in the slightest.

Now, the San Andreas fault shifts and then we'll talk!

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[gagol]

For those who dont get it, I was impacted in the Saguenay flood (Quebec, Canada) in which we had whole neighbourhoods washed away with water. More recently, a crude oil train exploded downtown where I live, killing 50 people and razing half downtown... Not trolling, just putting things in perspective.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[gagol]

How many deads?

Re: Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

285 people died in hurricane sandy.

Re: Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[gagol]

Sorry to hear that... The news coverage I got was spotty I guess. If we talk about relative terms, 0.9% of the population died when that crude oil train blown up.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious now, who really calls themselves New Yorkers other than people from New York City?

Do the people from Buffalo, Albany etc call themselves New Yorkers?

Re: Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[oodaloop]

Right, a mahor northern US city being 9 feet underwater from a freak hurricane/snow storm wasn't newsworthy enough to be more than spotty, and your memory is perfect. That must be what happened.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to Mississippi and New Orleans during Katrina and Homestead during Andrew? Yes. Minor.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Richy_T]

People resident in York who just moved in?

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Richy_T]

I actually quite like NYC. But Americans have a provincialism that tends to scale as some power of the population density.

Re:Why worry about Category 5 or 6?

[Richy_T]

That's US Americans FWIW. ;)

Lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a random assemblage of unscientific climate change denial and pointless conservative curmudgeonry! How the hell did this get voted up into the home page?

Re:Lolwut?

[sneakyimp]

Mod parent up. The OP is a perfect example of some non-scientist hating the players and not the game. Tesla's marketing gaffes do not alter the fact that their car is safer than pretty much anything out there. Al Gore's hyperbolic statements are irrelevant to the actual truth about climate change. And, please remind me, which UN committee was it that was unaffected by some agenda?

The OP maybe be marginally funny (to some) and possibly gratifying to climate change deniers, but it contributes nothing at all to any scientific discussion. Go find some real data if you want to have a serious discussion. Otherwise, stay on the porch with the little dogs.

Re:Lolwut?

[barlevg]

OP here. And my Ph.D and career take issue with your "non-scientist" characterization. My point in submitting the story (based on articles written by meteorologists) was not to "gratify" climate change deniers. On the contrary. It was to call out a man making stupid (and blatantly false) assertions. When climate change supporters exaggerate claims (like with that arctic methane bomb a few weeks back) or falsify data, it HURTS their (OUR) case rather than helping it. One of the biggest criticisms I (and other liberals) have of many conservatives is that they make shit up, bend "facts" to serve political agendas and completely ignore reality even it's staring them in the face. When Al Gore says that man is causing "category six" hurricanes when a UN report says there's no conclusive evidence that man is causing stronger hurricanes, and the NWS says there's nothing past Category Five, he's being alarmist, irrational and no better than the "deniers" he's giving ammunition to.

Re:Lolwut?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yes, but you should still shut up when this happens. Anything that helps the bad people is bad. Anything that helps us is good. Take a cue from feminists and racists, they're veterans at this sort of thing.

Re:Lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit right on why I don't listen to AWG proponents. If its anywhere near as bad as they claim, they wouldn't have to make crap up, but its hard to find them saying anything that isn't easily provable to be crap. Its gotten to the point that even if they were honest from now on I probably won't listen to them from their track record.

Re:Lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly, for someone making gross generalizations about political conservatives, that is a very conservative position to take as a scientist.

There should be a Cat 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.

Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?

Nice trolling submission.

Re:There should be a Cat 6

[memeplex]

There's a bit of a difference between "should be", and "they're adding a..." There's no need to reflexively defend Gore. AGW is real. Gore being an asshole is also real.

Re:There should be a Cat 6

[Obfuscant]

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level.

Yes, Cat6. More twists per inch and you can't strip back as far when you punch one down into a patch block.

Re:There should be a Cat 6

[sneakyimp]

I like how the conservative talking points seem to have shifted in recent years away from whether global temperatures are actually warmer (they are) and on to whether or not these higher temperatures result in any noticeable effect.

Re:There should be a Cat 6

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a category 6 Vice President and wind-bag.

Re:There should be a Cat 6

[rwa2]

Meh, Cat 5e is good enough for gigabitch storm systems. If you want to push any more than that, might was well go fiber. MMmm... multimode storms... with fricken' lasers.

I got him beat

[Mitchell314]

My category scale goes to 11

Re:I got him beat

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I am! Rocked you like a huricaaaaaaaaaaaaane!

Re:I got him beat

[gagol]

That's nothing, on my laptop the volume goes to 255!

Re:I got him beat

[Em Adespoton]

My category scale goes to 11

64 should be a high enough category for any hurricane.

Re:I got him beat

[binarylarry]

My player only goes to 128 because was it was written in Java, you insensitive clod!

Re:I got him beat

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's nothing. Mine goes up to 16777215 !

Re:I got him beat

[Sabriel]

If we use a linear best fit:

Cat "11" - winds in excess of 439 km/hour. Unless you're Superman, flying is probably not recommended.

Cat "12+" - the highest wind speeds ever recorded on Earth occur in tornadoes; doppler radar has measured speeds exceeding 500km/hr in the tornado's trunk (speeds at the tornado's base are difficult to measure due to its tendency to destroy the instruments).

Cat "16" - the highest wind speeds ever recorded on a planetary body clock in at 620 km/hour, in Jupiter's "Little Red Storm" (well, as of 2008 anyway, there's probably more recent data somewhere).

Cat "35" - the speed of sound at Earth's current sea level - Mach 1 - is roughly 1225 km/hour at Standard Sea Level conditions.

Cat "64" - winds in excess of 2136 km/h.

Cat "One Million" - the highest "wind" speeds recorded (so far) in the universe clock in at about three percent of the speed of light: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/igr.html

Re:I got him beat

[Sabriel]

replace "speed of sound at Earth's current sea level" with "speed of sound on Earth", sorry.

Re:I got him beat

[Darinbob]

My laptop is BCD and the volume only goes to 9999, but the neighbors still complain about it.

A whole news post

[Anonymous Coward]

arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Re:A whole news post

[Em Adespoton]

arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Writing analysis says this was typed by the same person who typed

Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.

Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?

Nice trolling submission.

Re:A whole news post

[Richy_T]

Words, eh? It's not like they mean anything or anything like that.

Re:A whole news post

[wooferhound]

If a Hurricane is strong enough to tip over a Tesla model S, then it should get a Category 6 rating . . .

Re:A whole news post

[ArcadeMan]

I think you mean category 6S. And let the NHTSA and/or NWS copyright the term "6S" too, just so that Apple has to go from iPhone 6 to iPhone 7 in one step for a change.

Er... the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's Model S, no matter how safe it is, doesn't get any special grade inflation: there's no "5.4" scoreas the company did in a press release this week), because that's just not how the NHTSA keeps score. (Hat tip to reader cartechboy.)

( + excuse me?!

Not The High One!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's delightful to see all the AC warming alarmist trolls squirm as their high priest is chided for wrongful claims of "science".

Re: Gore

[Mitchell314]

Tu quoque's don't get us anywhere. Just point out that there are political pricks who're douchebags, which we already know. Yes, that includes Al Gore. No, that does not change the science of climate change. Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.

I'm Good With Tesla's Claims

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm happy with Tesla claiming a 5.4 ... as long as the same scoring is reported for other cars. I haven't heard a peep about what competing vehicles got when scored the same way. Maybe i missed it, but it sure seemed like none of the 'reporters' were willing to even do the mildest amount of investigation to give the public an honest comparison and that's where the real problem is.

Re:I'm Good With Tesla's Claims

[tlhIngan]

I'm happy with Tesla claiming a 5.4 ... as long as the same scoring is reported for other cars. I haven't heard a peep about what competing vehicles got when scored the same way. Maybe i missed it, but it sure seemed like none of the 'reporters' were willing to even do the mildest amount of investigation to give the public an honest comparison and that's where the real problem is.

Apparently, it's capped at 5. However, that doesn't mean a car can't score higher, it's just it's reported as 5.

The reason for the "5.4" is that they keep the raw scores - they occasionally have to reset all the scores because cars were basically passing the current criteria. So they reset the meanings to make 5 a harder goal still. Of course, since you can't compare a 5 from the past to a 5 today, they reassess all the scores and give them new ratings based on what the current rating system is. So yesterday's 5 might be today's 4.

They keep raw values because you can't obviously re-test obsolete vehicles, but you still need to be able to compare.

The other way, of course, is to add further ratings - so 5 stars today is 5 stars tomorrow - you see this with some ranking systems, e.g., Windows Experience Index where the max value is raised (5 in Vista, 7.9 in 7, I don't know what 8 has).

It's just that today, Tesla's Model S exceeds current safety ratings (they had to "cheat" to get it to roll over because there was no standard test maneuver they could do to roll it over, and I think on the roof crush test, it broke the machine).

Of course, tomorrow when people make even safer cars, the Model S might score a 4 with the new criteria.

Re:I'm Good With Tesla's Claims

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is NHTSA scoring system technically allows for higher than 5.0 type scores, but the official scores top at 5.0.

It is like a teacher I had in school, they'd add 2 extra questions at the end of tests. Those 2 questions could be used to make up for a pair of missed questions, but could not raise your official score above the value of the test.

So Tesla is bragging they got the extra credit questions and extrapolating their score to 5.4 - NHTSA says you can only use integers and no float values.

Re:I'm Good With Tesla's Claims

[Darinbob]

Requiring reporters to do investigations is asking them to do work, which is an insult to the traditions of their profession.

Category 6?

[ThatAblaze]

Once we start colonizing other planets category 6 may be needed. Until then it's just political pedantry.

I'm a little confused though.. is this article about Mr. Gore exaggerating climate change to fit his agenda, or is it about the UN dismissing the signs of climate change to fit their agenda? "People and organizations promote their agendas to the exclusion of truth, news at 11. Also, stay tuned for corrections about previous stories."

It must be another slow news day.

Re:Category 6?

[Obfuscant]

or is it about the UN dismissing the signs of climate change to fit their agenda?

I'm sorry, what? The UN doesn't have an agenda that benefits from dismissing "signs of climate change". How can the smaller countries rake the big developed ones over the coals if the coals aren't creating an impending disaster that the big countries need to give the small ones money to solve?

Re:Category 6?

[Anonymous Coward]

per the quote: The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.

you are suppose to have forgotten about what he/they said before and only react to what they say now..Come on, get in line there....

Re:Category 6?

[ThatAblaze]

Any sentence that begins with "The UN doesn't have an agenda ..." is patently absurd. The UN is a group of countries, both big and small, that have come together to push their agendas. The only way it does anything is through that process.

Re:Category 6?

[Obfuscant]

Any sentence that begins with "The UN doesn't have an agenda ..." is patently absurd.

Any reader who stops after 6 words in a compound sentence is patently absurd, and anyone who reads what I wrote and comes away with the idea I said that the UN has no agenda is insane or illiterate or both.

Caldera Volcano

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, now i agree we do need to cut back on pollution, cars are not the problem,

look up super tankers you know the big boats, that have cargo boxes on them.
^they put out more crap then all the worlds cars

i am annoyed by sound pollution, nobody ever talks about that, its like choppers and rice go faster when loud?

In one day a volcano could burp, and spit out more toxic gases than from the entire industrial rev. to now, look it up
i dont have a phd in geology

I rate this story 11

[Anonymous Coward]

On a scale of 10.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I hate Gore too. You forgot to mention drug addict.

FTFY... Well, one of them Gores anyhow...

Category 5 is know as the hand of god....

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose Category 6 be classified as "Satan's Cumblast"

ManBearPig!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows that category 6 is reserved for ManBearPig.

I'm totally cereal. Excelsior!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig

Tesla Model S

[Joining Yet Again]

Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions, then when another group of bitter owners tried (again without reproducing original conditions), one car wouldn't charge until it had received a "firmware update"?

I don't think the internal combustion engine has much to worry about just yet.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason the review showed the car failing is because the reviewer INTENTIONALLY didn't recharge the battery enough for the last leg of the trip (as the on board computer data logs showed quite clearly).

Take an ICE engine that gets 30 mpg, put one gallon in it, and it'll also not make a 100 mile trip (or whatever the distance was).

Go figure.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the car where a reporter failed to make a simple journey and Musk published misleading charts which didn't even take account of the wheel diameter, then a big deal was made out of a repeat which was done in substantially different conditions,

No, it was the one where a reporter had an upfront bias agenda and went out of his way to make things fail
so he could have juicy story.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Joining Yet Again]

1) Except that that's not the reporter's account, and it's getting pretty boring to hear Tesla+fanboys try sooooo hard to discredit someone simply because he was driving like anyone would normally drive a car and he found out that one car isn't quite suited for driving like that;

2) Even so, when you're doing an independent test, you rely on independent logging.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree independent logging would be great, but you're being silly. What the reported said contradicts both what the Tesla logs say and common sense, and even what the reporte said (he admitted he didn't charge it according to directions or common sense for the last leg).

You have a reporter with a history of dislike for EVs who according to common sense, computer logs, and his own article simply failed to actually charge up the battery enough for the last leg of his trip.

From Musk's response:

        The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.

        In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.

Also, stop with the bullshit tesla fanboy crap. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Anonymous Coward]

By his own admission he defied both directions and basic common sense and tried to go 61 miles on a car only charged enough to go 32. The car made it 51 after using up its reserve capacity.

Complete idiocy, and you're nothing but a shill for defending him.

Re:Tesla Model S

[Anonymous Coward]

Take an ICE and put 15 minutes of refueling into it and you have a hell of a big puddle. That's the point, which you have kneejerked against. It's a fine car for your commute. That's about it.

Warming will reduce, not increase hurricanes.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're driven by the heat gradient across latitude, and increased temperature overall will reduce that gradient.

There was talk of adding a 6

[geekoid]

Open ended doesn't mean there isn't room for another category. Category is based on damage to a home. SO Cat 5 means 'highly likely to destroy a house'.
also takes out most the windows in a high rise building..

But what happens when they start making high rises uninhabitable and need to be torn down?
That would mean they would need to add a category.
It's science. If new data or events start to happen the science with adjust to fit the data.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws_table.pdf

Re:There was talk of adding a 6

[Jeremy Erwin]

The Enhanced Fujita Scale-- which estimates wind speed on the basis of damage assessments, not on measurements, has an EF-5 category-- steel reinforced concrete structures are critically damaged; high rise buildings sustain severe structural damage. An Ef5 tornado is believed to have winds in excess of 200 mph.

Hurricane Camille had sustained wind-speeds of up to 190 mph.

So there might be some usefulness to a sixth category, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re: Gore

[geekoid]

Too bad all the increased data only made stronger evidence for his claim, i'm not sure why they 'made you wan to vomit*'
The hockey stick is still there, all the new data supports it. Dozens of more studies have been done with that data.

*frankly, I've never wanted to vomit.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder about people who get off on calling Rush Limbaugh a drug addict. He's in very good company with plenty of other folks that the same liberal types fall all over themselves to adore, so why the double standard?

No hurricane increase !

[Anonymous Coward]

Professor Pielke recently testified to congress on these matters, there is no increase in hurricane strength or frequency.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/pielke-jrs-follow-up-qa-from-the-senate-epw-committee/#more-92033

2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?

PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.

3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.

a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.

b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.

c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?

PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.

4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)

PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge.

Combining articles

[Netdoctor]

That's two different subjects.

Editors: is this a news aggregation site, or are we now making new articles here?

Re:Combining articles

[wooferhound]

Yes the aggregated 2 unrelated stories into 1, They are trying to make s smaller footprint so a hurricane will cause less damage . . .

Re:Combining articles

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to second the whine on this, especially since confounding the two different subjects ensures no relevant discussion on the articles in question... which, I guess, is nothing new here.

Aside, Gore's arguably irresponsible use of "they" allows his statement to be effectively true, as anyone with Google could easily ascertain. Even the universally hated Wikipedia links to http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 and http://www.livescience.com/426-wilma-rage-suggests-hurricane-categories-needed.html , both of which discuss the feeling of some scientists and journalists that category 6 IS needed. Therefore, "they" do talk about adding category 6, as long as one allows "them" to include journalists and scientists. That said I agree he should know by now to be very exact in his communications, and references with "they" are dubious to begin with.

NHC's stance as relayed by NWS (that's right, the article linked doesn't even have statement straight from the horse's mouth, though I'll admit I'm not up to date on the exact organizational relation of the two) seems counter-purposeful, though. Even if current building codes don't require buildings to be able to withstand even category 5 hurricanes, which seems to be the gist of the reason for not having higher categories, having higher categories would provide incentive and instrument to measure even stronger buildings. Indeed, as category 5 is open-ended, it's currently impossible to advertise a hurricane safe-room as "category 5 proof".

Comparable Ratings

[Anonymous Coward]

If a Category 6 storm is coming, just get in your 5.4 safety-rated Tesla. What could go wrong?

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between hyperbole and a bold faced lie.

Re:Gore

[Pino Grigio]

Spot on. Of course here you'll get marked troll for pointing it out. In the US, everything is a binary split between "liberal" (not Classical Liberal of the kind the founding fathers would recognise) and "Conservative". Slashdot is mostly the former. Al Gore is a "liberal" hero, but as you've correctly observed, also a massive twat.

As I read this story

[hawkingradiation]

I am asking: what is the point?

Re:Gore

[binarylarry]

Don't be so hasty, the man is very important.

Without him, we wouldn't have the Algore-rithm that he invented while attending Harvard.

Where would computer science be without the Algorithm?

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Herp derp. Gore-bots can't handle the truth.

Scientific American

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is always good to dump on Al Gore by claiming he
        said something that he didn't say, IN THIS CASE there is a 2011
            story from Scientific American - the lefty publication that
        seduces our young into a life of respect for science and fact that
        actually substantiates that the claim he makes is....TRUE. He never
        claimed that the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE was discussing the change,
        only that Climate Scientists were discussing the change. Which -
        apparently in 2011 some were. But please vent your spleen at him
        anyway.

Re:Scientific American

[barlevg]

Yeah, but it's the NWS who makes the call. Also, more relevantly, the data's not all back yet on whether climate change causes stronger hurricanes (a comment above suggests the reverse might be true). Climate change is real. I do not dispute that. And it's real enough that there's no need for hyperbole that only hurts the cause in the long run.

Re:Scientific American

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore the links in the article summary don't really back up the claims. The one about "leaked climate report" says nothing about hurricanes, and as long as it's just a leaked report, it could be forged or change entirely before publication. The link to "hurricane severity" is actually about "natural disaster losses", and it's a no-brainer that the more expensive infrastructure are built on natural disaster prone areas the more expensive the losses will be, but this speaks nothing to the actual severity of weather events.

The current "best science" on hurricane severity short of leaked unpublished reports interpreted by adverse journalists can be found for example at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes . From the summary, "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size." ie. there IS a very strong correlation between human activity and hurricane severity (even stronger in some areas, as the article notes). On the other hand, due to scientific rigor on evidence, they will never actually be able to point out "this hurricane/severity was caused by global warming". In fact, hurricane have been getting more severe, but until the end of the century they can't tell if it's statistically significant or not.

So in other words, Gore's statement that "The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events." is little exagerated, though I should note that "fingerprint" is not scientific speech in this context. I'm bit torn on this myself, but on the other hand it's fairly clear nothing could be accomplished if Gore went around just stating "Let's just do nothing while we wait for 2080 when we can definitely say whether hurricanes have been affected by global warming". It's a scientific nuance, the problem is that when you are scientifically correct and say for example "We are almost certain that...", scientifically illiterate people will go off saying "Scientists say they aren't sure!" etc. Gore is certainly no scientist, and I can hardly blame him for reaching out to common people with expressions like "fingerprint of man-made global warming" rather than more accurate "Hurricane intensity is closely following ocean temperature which is affected by global warming most of which with high certainty is human-caused. By the time we can tell it apart from natural variation it'll be too late to do anything about it", though.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe it has to do with his comment over the year about just throwing drug users in jail, you moron. ITs not that anyone cares that he is a drug addict and that there are no liberal drug addicts any more then liberals really care that Newter has had 4 marriages. Its not there personal lives they care about, its the hypocrisy with witch they apply the rules. If YOU'RE a drug addict or gay its jail(w/ no voting, no job, no rehab) or no marriage(what with the sanctity of it all). If its THEM, well life just goes on they way they would like it it too.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder about people who get off on calling Rush Limbaugh a drug addict. He's in very good company with plenty of other folks that the same liberal types fall all over themselves to adore, so why the double standard?

Because conservatives tend toward the druggies=scum rhetoric, continued acceptance of Rush indicates a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

It's similar to the way politicians of all stripes get caught having affairs, but it's a bigger deal when it's someone who campaigned on a family values platform.

Rating system broken

[Twinbee]

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.

It reminds me of 20 watt CFL light bulbs which have an 'A' rating. At least in the UK, it stops there; you can't get better than an A no matter how well a device performs (11 watt LED bulbs are apparently almost twice as efficient at 11 watt compared to 20). It's an artificial limitation which limits product innovation and efficiency. If you are going to use letters than at least go from A forwards through the alphabet, or even better, report the actual efficiency as lumens per watt rather than a blind, backwards system which can't imagine that the future could get any better.

Re:Rating system broken

[Anonymous Coward]

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe.

You incorrectly assume that a higher score means it's more safe.

Re:Rating system broken

[Twinbee]

Well if that's the case, then you can't trust any of the scores from the NHTSA. On the contrary, the Model S is exceptionally good at avoiding overturns, has a great lengthy crumple zone at the front (due to the lack of an ICE engine), and its side impacts is the safest (or one of the safest) going due to rocket engineers designing the thing. It wouldn't surprise me if a score of 6 or 7 should be given instead of 5.4.

No fatalities or serious injuries in the Model S so far apparently, despite a few accidents. See for example this story where someone was drink driving maybe about 80mph and demolished an electric pole, but survived thanks to the Model S (it employed all 8 airbags apparently).

Re:Rating system broken

[AK Marc]

So the better the crash performance, the less safe a car is?

Re:Rating system broken

[wickerprints]

Just because there are flaws in measurement methodology doesn't mean the solution is to extrapolate the resulting measurement. The correct solution is to revise the way the data is collected and the resulting measure is calculated. You don't somehow extend the flawed measurement to try to recover some meaning that might have been lost. A procedure that is limited in its ability to quantify some property of interest, but is essentially valid within its stated scope, is still preferable to trying to extend the scope in a way that it was never designed to address.

Re:Rating system broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla marketing drone detected.

Re:Rating system broken

[swillden]

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe.

You incorrectly assume that a higher score means it's more safe.

What an unreasonable assumption, that higher scores on a scale that attempts to measure safety indicate more safety.

Re:Rating system broken

[gaspyy]

Not sure about UK, but elsewhere in Europe home appliances were also rated from G to A initially. Then they had to add A+ and even A++

Re:Rating system broken

[tlhIngan]

How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.

The NHTSA caps it at 5 because that's the current limit of the measurement.

You can score above it. In fact, periodically, as cars get safer, the NHTSA re-scales all the ratings. Now, using the raw scores, they can recalculate all the scores for every car they tested - yesterday's 5 star may be tomorrow's 4 star or even 3 star.

They realize that technology evolves, and as more cars hit the 5 stars, they'll decide to make the criterion even tougher and recompute all the scores.

I'm sure there are probably a few "5 star" cars that are classics today that more than a few people would be scared to get into - of course, using today's ratings it won't be 5 stars anymore. Heck, it may rate 0 stars because it lacks modern safety systems.

There are four ways to deal with scores that improve with time.

One is to ignore it and let everything get capped, which rapidly gets useless if the reason is due to technology.

Another is to simply make the scores uncomparable - yesterday's 10/10 can't be compared to today's 10/10 or tomorrow's 10/10. Great for stuff that's highly transient where you probably won't want to compare with historical results.

Third is to increase the scale, like the Windows Experience Index. It was capped at 5.0 for Vista, 7.9 for 7, and who knows what it is for 8.

Fourth is you keep raw data, and when too many are scoring top marks, you readjust the scale. And then recomputed the new marks based on the readjusted case. This one is the most comparable (you can look at history and see what its old stars were, and what it is as the system evolved), and it's also the most work since everything needs recalculation (easy for computers, though). But it lets you see what yesterday's thing is compared to today's thing directly (as long as you use the current results - it's pointless comparing yesterday's 5 star with today's 6 star. But you can compare Vehicle A's old 5 star with today's rating to see how it fares, or Vehicle A vs Vehicle B using today's ratings).

Re:Rating system broken

[Twinbee]

Yes, the third idea is obviously best, since manufacturers which aim above a 5* rating won't be needlessly capped.

It also allows comparison between old cars and new cars. For example, if someone wants to upgrade their old year 2000 car, they can compare the safety in a much more consistent manner.

Basically, it's much more elegant, and I'm a little in awe why they haven't already made it like that.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I hate Al Gore too. He also forgot to mention attempted rapist.

A UN Report? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, a recently leaked United Nations climate assessment claims only 'low confidence' of a link between human activity...

1. The UN is full of diplomats and politicians, not climate scientists.

2. When the hell has the UN ever done ANYTHING that wasn't politically motivated? It's in their GODDAMN MISSION STATEMENT.

[insert facepalm here]

Re: Gore

[sneakyimp]

What? Everyone knows Al Gore is a closeted ruddy-faced queen.

Human "induced" change

[bricko]

They are conflating MORE people moving into an area as increased human caused warming damage.....nonsense , again.

Re:Human "induced" change

[barlevg]

Awkwardly worded, I admit (the summary was getting long, and I didn't want to out-and-out plagiarize the source article). But the argument is that hurricane severity is measured in dollars of destruction, and in that case, the more likely culprit for increased property destruction was increased property to destroy.

Al Gore is a Cateory 6 moron

[JoeyRox]

And a hurricane has more personality than him.

Re:Al Gore is a Cateory 6 moron

[Anonymous Coward]

And a hurricane has more personality than him.

But less windy hot air

Re:Al Gore is a Cateory 6 moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I remember the old joke.

"Al Gore is so stiff, he buys his suits at Home Depot."

Actually the original joke said Grossman's, but I don't think anyone remembers them. They're still around, sort of. A shadow of their former selves.

Re: Gore

[TapeCutter]

Rush is the only hypocrite in that story, and that's because of his public statements about "drug addicts". Try and keep up commrade.

Re:Biased much?

[barlevg]

That was actually my point exactly in posting this article. In order to support the argument that climate change deniers are the ones who disregard reality, we need to make sure that climate change awareness "advocates" don't go around doing the exact same shit.

Re: Gore

[TapeCutter]

I'm not an American and don't really see Gore as a politician, even though I remember him as one. I actually like the guy, he's the only US politician that I can think of in the last 20yrs that even comes close to being a geek. He doesn't personally profit from his climate charity, and he's a long way off being a "billionaire".

Ding .. Ding .. DING !!!

[Zero__Kelvin]

I don't know about all of the ones in the summary (and certainly the Al Gore one is absurd), but when it comes to overstated claims, I know this one website that claims to have "News for Nerds; Stuff that Matters".

Just for some Perspective

[drfred79]

Just for some perspective, on another Anthropogenic Global Warming topic, I made an argument that each one of these emergency environmental crisii all have the same narrative and solution. My comment was upvoted 6 times for insightful and funny, downvoted 5 times for troll and overrated. I understand my opinion was different but if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming its not because you think science hasn't backed up the argument its because you are a troll and no intelligent person would disbelieve that global climate scientists would have any profit/fame motive for making the global climate a life/death issue.

Re:Gore

[elrous0]

ManBearPig is real, you deniers!!!

These are separate articles!

[darth_borehd]

These two articles have nothing in common. It seems to me that somebody is trying to present a biased viewpoint about environmentalism and alternate fuel vehicles.

Re: Gore

[The Archon V2.0]

That your best argument for Al Gore is to snark on how Rush Limbaugh is worse speaks volumes about how fucked-up the American political landscape is.

Childish

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you apparently lack a defense for Gore and therefore lash-out at one of his critics. The Troll you were responding to was at least commenting on a guy who was the subject of the original post... what's your excuse?

Second, you lefties LOVE the recreational use of drugs, but then scream about somebody who (like all too many Americans) got hooked on pain pills after a surgical procedure...way to go there Einstein. No conservative I know has either been pleased by Limbaugh's drug problem, or been overly-critical of those unfortunate people who become similarly hooked. We do, however, have sufficient mental agility to distinguish between a person who starts legitimately using a prescribed narcotic for legitimate medical reasons and gets hooked, and a person who simply chooses to use drugs for recreational purposes and then sinks into a dysfunctional lifestyle of his/her own making... often becoming dependent upon fellow citizens being FORCED at gunpoint (ever try NOT paying your taxes? they'll show up with guns to compel you) to pick-up the tab for food, medicine, rent etc.

Because data rates matter

[Anonymous Coward]

CAT 5 was better than the old coax and CAT 6 is even better... CAT1? Sooo 1980's.... oh, wait... were you talking about that stuff that happens when you go OUTSIDE???? never mind

Next time, try READING and pay attention

[Anonymous Coward]

First, many people (not all are "conservative", these are not perfectly overlapping groups) have issues with AGW and I am unaware of any "talking points" telling people to shift away from temperature... particularly in a year when we are closing-out a record cold arctic summer and setting record summer lows all across North America. Second, if you READ the damn report, they're not quite making the case you think they are, and third, even if you read it that way it's important to pay attention to the DATA they cite (you know, that DATA stuff that all the science-y people are supposed to make use of?) I particularly like all the global sea temps from the 1800's that are calibrated to within a tenth of a degree... we had some really neato steampunk weather satellites back then, you know...

Category 6

[mcswell]

Give him a break folks, he's talking about the hot air storms in Congress.

Re: Gore

[Man On Pink Corner]

Is there any way they can both lose?

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, I'll wait for you to complain about the Loch Brothers and their paid shills.

Gore

[maseo126]

I though it was pronounced Gorch:/

a leak?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone leaked a climate estimate? Oh my god! Call the CIA and MI6!

Tipper Divorced Al For Good Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Al's mind is fading fast with consumption of alcohol, heroin and viagra to fuel his sex drive.

Likely, amongst many factors, Al's "investments" in the Insurance and Re-Insurance Industry are his motive.

Like Trendberth who writes of "risk" and the moving "hotspot" instead of real physics or experiments, Al wants to promote fear and get a nice return on his insurance and Re-insurance stock picks.

Simple Ponzi scheme by Al actually.

of course there's a category 6

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes between 5 and 7 !

1: 74–95 mph
2: 96–110 mph
3: 111–129 mph
4: 130–156 mph
5: 157 mph
extrapolate ( you figure it out )
6: 199-278mph
7: 279-435mph

There have been two storms which would fall into category "6": Typhoon Ida in 1958 and Typhoon Nancy in 1961, both with sustained winds of 215 mph

Given that the scale is meant to measure potential damage ( and once something is completely destroyed there's no need to measure further ) maybe we should be using a different scale to talk about strength of the actual hurricane itself...

Re:Gore

[Citizen of Earth]

Fat-ass, sanctimonius, lying, pompous hypocrite.

You forgot "rich".

Re: Gore

[interkin3tic]

Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.

Well it's a real shame no scientist with data supporting climate change ever tried to explain it to the public, then. They all figured a vice president would come along, so why bother before that?

Scientists have been saying this for decades. Not enough people cared. Nothing happened, long after it was obvious a change needed to be made. Better PR was needed. And that still didn't solve it. Even had there not been powerful interests in carbon taxes, I don't think the public would have overcome it's inertia and demanded reducing carbon emissions, they hear it's not going to happen tomorrow and it isn't sex or movies, and ignore it.

What's wrong with Gore anyway? Agenda? Who the hell DOESN'T have an agenda? I've heard he was in on a scheme to get rich from selling carbon credits. So what? Is that a reason not to fight climate change? There are a lot more people who are a lot more evil than Gore getting insanely wealthy off us NOT taxing carbon. Like, OPEC. Gore seems unlikely to take his carbon money and fund it towards suppressing human rights and terrorism, which is not true of oil money. The coal industry isn't quite as bad as OPEC, but there's a lot of terrible people there too.

Gore is Irrelevant!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't put it so harshly, but Gore became irrelevant the moment his $17,000 electricity bill for his mansion became public. You can't argue semantics and take a moral high-ground about being Eco-friendly, if you yourself don't follow it and behave that way.

Politicians, especially those in, out, or vying for the Executive branch, should be held to a higher standard than what we currently accept. We're presently electing the lowest common denominator, and it shows.

Re: Gore

[daath93]

Aye. Being worth a mere $200mil makes him just like you and I.

shut it, troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok lets try your perspective, dumbass.

>At least 286 people were killed along the path of the storm in seven countries.

>In the United States, Hurricane Sandy affected 24 states, including the entire eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine and west across the Appalachian Mountains to Michigan and Wisconsin, with particularly severe damage in New Jersey and New York. Its storm surge hit New York City on October 29, flooding streets, tunnels and subway lines and cutting power in and around the city.[14][15] Damage in the United States amounted to $65 billion (2013 USD). a total surpassed only by Hurricane Katrina.

https://www.google.com/search?q=breezy+point+sandy&tbm=isch&

http://www.businessinsider.com/battery-park-flooding-2012-10

Al Gore is NOT an "enviromentalist"

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a SCAMMER pushing fear and misrepresented information in order to sell the SCAM called Carbon Credits. He is the main owner of the company that sells carbon credits and that scam is allowing companies to DOUBLE their normal pollution.

Pfft. Yeah, he's talking like a human.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This amp goes up to 11!".

Ring a bell?

Do you complain that there is no 11 on a dial?

No?

I'm afraid you're the fatass hypocrite.

Murderers kill less than that

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess, if we talk about relative terms, we should remove murder from the books as a crime.

And if I kill your entire family, how many percentage points of the US population has been removed?

I guess the problem is that it wasn't anyone you know and therefore you have no care whatsoever other than you've had to pay to fix it up with your taxes.

"Sorry to hear that..." I guess means you're sorry that your attempt to avoid showing your complete contempt for anyone else in the world if it means you have to do something has to be hidden with a different load of bullshit.

Re:Murderers kill less than that

[gagol]

Yes, in relative terms, in our small town, everybody lost someone. Try to imagine 100000 deaths in New York and you have an idea of the impact it have on our community.

Pielke lied.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that.

Lied to congress. Deniers did that before: Pat Michaels "I get less than 10% of my money from fossil fuel industries" to congress, 40% gets paid from them when he's talking to the IRS.

Because the IRS aren't interested in what they want to hear, they're interested in the truth about your earnings.

Congress not so much, well possibly the other way. They want you RICH before they listen to you.

You are a SCAMMER

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to avoid paying for cleaning up the mess that you helped create and benefited off not cleaning up before.

You are someone who pays tax and you want to keep all that money and pay NO tax, therefore you reject without consideration of its necessity ANYTHING that MAY increase your tax burden.

Re:Gore

[hairyfeet]

I'm sure those that are skeptics (or like me think the "solutions" that they are attempting to ram down our throats are just a giant reverse robin hood cash grab by Gore and pals) love the hell out of the Al Gore, after all the more times he's caught just outright pulling the "facts" from his rectum the easier it is to get more folks to be skeptical.

In a way he makes me think of another Al, Al Sharpton, in that even if he has some facts on his side he has to go so far out with his rhetoric that even if he originally had a point he quickly becomes a recruitment tool for the other side. With both Als the facts are never enough, they ALWAYS have to go overboard with the bullshit and spin until it gets to the point if they said it was raining you'd want a second opinion.

Those that believe in AGW frankly ought to do everything they can to distance themselves from al Gore and his hypocritical bullshit, his farting around in a Lear jet or a fleet of limos while claiming he is carbon neutral because he gets credits from HIS OWN COMPANY (this would be like me moving money from my left to right pocket and getting cheers and a tax credit for "wealth redistribution") just makes the entire platform look like a giant scam cooked up by a bunch of greedy spoiled pigs that want to stuff their pockets selling snake oil. If there HAS to be a public face to AGW I have the perfect candidate...Ed Begley Jr. That man not only talks the talk he walks the walk, living in a modest house and driving a small electric vehicle and living as lightly as he can to minimize his footprint, makes a hell of a lot better example than the Rev Al Gore and his McMansion with indoor basketball court and AC blasting.

Said better than I ever could

[barlevg]

This article neatly sums up my feelings aboutwhy I felt it was important to submit this story to slashdot:

Politicians and others can be effective communicators of climate science and guide us toward policy action, but they risk creating confusion and eroding public confidence in science when they make misrepresentative statements.

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate changes, it's what happens in a dynamic system. The question is if Man's actions are of any significant portion of the change. If one assumes yes, then there is drive to tax tax tax and do something about it. So how much should we spend ? You are welcome as a Anthropic climate change believer, to implement a (70%) income tax on yourself, giving it right to the UN, http://www.unfoundation.org/how-to-help/donate/

Re:Biased much?

[Anonymous Coward]

ohh, but I don't want to spend my own money.. I want the government to use their guns to force it on others as a tax.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what, when Gore gets rid of his 30,000 sq ft house and all the SUVs he drives around and starts living what he's preaching I will listen.

I see the problem: envy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're JEALOUS of his success and weath and want him taken down to greater poverty than you because working hard like he did is beyond you.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit trying to make scientific speculation appear to be fact.

Can anyone PROVE any claim for or against? NO.

Its people like you that enable pompous hypocrites like Al & Tipper to accumulate more than 200B net worth... Go buy some carbon credits.

One must realize ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... whether it's Al Gore or Bill O'Reilly, the world prefers to get it's information from clowns. The clown's antics serve the message, if not so much the facts. The throng-de-jure suscribes to the message of its choice and the facts will just have to get in line; afterall, real science is too hard.

Re:Gore

[VIPERsssss]

I'd mod you up for those last 2 sentences alone, if I had points.

get the facts right

[mlemley]

on Tesla, this is wrong. The NHTSA did NOT say Tesla's statements were inaccurate. It said "we only give ratings up to 5, and that's what we want you to tell the public." Tesla's sin was disclosing the raw data, not the data the NHTSA wanted them to.

Re:Gore

[coolmoose25]

There is another guy who lives a lot like Ed Begley Jr. in that regard. He ran against Gore for the Presidency and won. While Al lives in a HUGE house in the south, and assuages his conscience with those "carbon credits", George W. Bush lives in a modest ranch house in Texas, that is heated and cooled with geothermal energy.

Re:Gore

[hairyfeet]

Thanks but this is something that has bothered me for years, Al Gore is the biggest fatass hypocrite on the planet and is about as useful for the cause of AGW as sending the head of the black panthers every time there is a racial incident so he can grab the mike and say "kill them honky bitches".

The man lives in a Mc Mansion capable of housing a half a dozen families without even coming into contact with each other, takes an entire fleet of SUVs wherever he goes like some third world dictator, farts around in a personal Lear Jet that often carries only him and a few aides, while having the big brass balls to say while he stuffs his face that YOU should do without or pay higher taxes that will go to him and his pals to "save" the environment he obviously cares soooo much about...the man is a pig, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. he is the classic "do as i say not as I do" hypocrite standing on high and stuffing his pockets while telling you to do without and even Ray Charles could see through his bullshit.

Contrast this to Begley who even though he has enough money he likewise could live like a pig lives in a VERY modest 3 bedroom like the majority of Americans live in, drives a little electric car with a bike rack so he can just pop off his bike and ride it for short hops and who does everything in his power to minimize his footprint and recycle, THAT is the kind of guy we should be hearing from, not some fat pig living like a king with his AC blasting while telling us we should just take the heat. another GREAT example is Dennis Weaver, he lives in a solar powered house made from cans and tires and other refuse, he like wise walks the walk.

key to being rightwing: never check the original s

[gzuckier]

Iâ(TM)m out-of-town and so away from my tape recorder. So I asked Goreâ(TM)s staff about the line and they have Gore saying:âoeThe scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane...some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5. âoe

Re: key to being rightwing: never check the origin

[gzuckier]

Garbled in cut and paste. Check original.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/23/al-gore-and-category-6-hurricanes/

Re:Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

That man not only talks the talk he walks the walk, living in a modest house and driving a small electric vehicle and living as lightly as he can to minimize his footprint

If gentry liberal America understood this is what is expected of them there would be a LOT more skepticism of contemporary climatology. The day they finally get it there will be precious little patience for gym/science/math/etc. teachers sitting the class down for another viewing of Gore's movie.

What is the definition of "Climate Change"

[hundertwasser]

Here's the IPCC's definition of climate change from http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-introduces-new-climate-change-definition/

"Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use."

Hasn't that been happening on Earth for at least 4.5 billion years (or 10,000 years for those Global Warming believers)?

Yes, the climate is changing; it's always changing. So how is that a thing?

The first sentence of the definition says that climate change is the status quo. The second sentence says it may attributed to anything, right?

Re:Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rare that I agree with you (on account of the fact that you're a complete dipshit and a braindead asshole) but that is spot on.

Re: Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange that you got modded down for pointing out a well known fact. I could understand if you had been modded down for talking about his Caribbean gay child sex tourism habit, because that hasn't actually been backed up (yet) with solid evidence.

Al Gore, the carbon billionaire

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, it's Al Gore, the carbon billionaire. A man who lives in a sprawling mansion that consumes more power than a city block and who to this day is known to travel the world in an empty 747 and drive everywhere in a motorcade of gas guzzling armored limousines.

This man is the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do"

Re:Gore

[hairyfeet]

Too bad just the amount of wasted fuel on his Iraq debacle (which just FYI didn't have a damned thing to do with terrorism but was a payback for quote "wanting to kill my dad" because even the CIA said that terrorists didn't get shit from Saddam) spewed enough crap into the air he'd have to live like Begley Jr for a thousand years just to make up for it, that don't count all the depleted uranium splattered all over the place, the wasted infrastructure that had to be rebuilt, if you look at the numbers war is the biggest pollutant you can possibly have short of just nuking from orbit.

Record Summer Sea Ice in 2013

[Anonymous Coward]

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/23/nasa-stumped-summer-arctic-ice-extent-among-highest-this-decade-antarctica-headed-toward-record-extent/

Hey Al, reality just keeps demolishing your delusional fantasy world.

You mad bro?