Es Al Gore un miserable? (Act.)

In an interview on America’s NPR on Tuesday, Gore claimed Cyclone Nargis was actually part of a pattern.

«Last year a catastrophic storm . . . hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China, and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming»

This cyclone that hit Burma is a «consequence» of global warming? Gore should die of shame to peddle such self-serving deceptions.

Fact: The world has not warmed in a decade, says the Hadley Centre and two of the three other institutions that measure its temperature.

Fact: Any link between hurricanes and warming is highly disputed by scientists, with «evidence both for and against», says the American Meteorological Society.

Fact: The data is «insufficiently reliable to detect trends on the frequency of extreme cyclones», says a recent paper in Science by world authority Chris Landsea.

Fact: The cyclone that hit Burma was just a category three storm – not a category five – and less deadly than worse cyclones that struck Bangladesh in 1970 and 1991. What’s more, Gore concedes the record breaker was 50 years ago, before the world got this gassy.

So there’s no recent warming, no agreed link with cyclones, no trend of worse cyclones, and nothing unusually strong about the one that hit Burma.

Yet there goes Gore – caw, caw, caw – flogging the warming scare that has made him so fantastically rich. The great Profit of Doom.

Durísimo el artículo de Andrew Bolt, pero acertado. No sólo la pobreza moral de Al Gore, la verdadera razón de los más de 100.000 muertos en Birmania queda al descubierto en su artículo: la dictadura militar. Léanlo entero, merece la pena.

Actualización: Parece ser que Al Gore no dijo que el huracán birmano fuese consecuencia del calentamiento global… lo que no quita ni un ápice de relevancia al texto de Bolt, claro.