Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gore's Staff Says He Was Misquoted On Hexametric Hurricanes

timothy posted about a year ago | from the what-he-meant-to-say-was dept.

Earth 216

jamie writes "In a story on Thursday, Slashdot and its readers had a little fun at the expense of Al Gore, who was quoted as saying that the hurricane severity scale was going to go to 6. A correction was made the next day. The author of the piece that Slashdot linked now writes 'I retract the balance of my criticism.' Turns out Gore was misquoted. Luckily for Gore, this is the first time he's been ridiculed for something he didn't actually say. Well, except for Love Story, Love Canal, farm chores, and everyone's favorite, inventing the internet. (The original Slashdot story is here and its central link now includes the Washington Post's correction.)" From Ezra Klein's update on his earlier piece: "I'm out-of-town and so away from my tape recorder. So I asked Gore's staff about the line and they have Gore saying: 'The 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.' That doesn't offend my memory of the discussion and it's entirely possible I missed Gore's qualifying sentence while trying to keep up. If so, that's my fault, and I apologize."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

does he (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44685945)

Does he really have a tape recorder?

Re:does he (4, Funny)

edawstwin (242027) | about a year ago | (#44686097)

He just verified the statement with the NSA.

AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686231)

Oh, WOW! The story has been SOOOO debunked. Al Gore never said that he invented the Internet! He said that he *created* the Internet which is the total opposite! Wow, you guys are so great with your debunkery. I think that we need to erect a statue to the guy who offered this correction!

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44686297)

Oh, WOW! The story has been SOOOO debunked. Al Gore never said that he invented the Internet! He said that he *created* the Internet which is the total opposite!

I know you're just trolling, but here's your sign [umich.edu] .

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#44686753)

I didn't realize Al Gore was also a plumber.

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44687941)

I didn't realize Al Gore was also a plumber.

Works better than "Land Shark".

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44688177)

No, you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

Mod drinkypoo DOWN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687295)

Martin Espinoza is a LIAR and a SHILL. His link is misleading. Mod parent down if you have the modpoints.
 
-Ethanol-fueled

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687745)

Ummmmmmm, this is Al Gore trying to take credit for the existence of the Internet. I, too, CREATED THE INTERNET BECAUSE I PAID TAXES.
 
Someone, please, get this man a lobotomy.

Re:AL GORE CREATED THE INTERNET! (2)

GoogleShill (2732413) | about a year ago | (#44687199)

I don't know which is sadder, the fact that you actually believe Gore said anything to that effect or that 5 people modded you up.

Re:does he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686261)

You know, had Al Gore not invented the Internet, the NSA would never have been able to verify Al Gore's statement, recorded on a conveniently "temporarily unavailable" tape recorder.

So once again, it seems that Al Gore has saved the day, and thus the world, from ManBearPig.

Misquoted? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685955)

Gore's lying Staff Says He Was Misquoted On Hexametric Hurricanes.

Re:Misquoted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686651)

He's no longer in a position to do much harm to important stuff, give Gore a break, he's funny.
As he said in the past: "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96
and
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

Re:Misquoted? (1)

Nail (1195) | about a year ago | (#44687549)

Nah, he's funnier as a rhetorical punching bag, and he asks for it. *shrug*

"There is no controlling legal authority ": (1)

Hartree (191324) | about a year ago | (#44685959)

Or to use the terms of a previous generation: "Those statements are no longer operative."

Rebublicans don't give a shit about truth (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44685995)

They just sling shit incessantly.

Re:Rebublicans don't give a shit about truth (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686625)

Your so perceptive, damn I bet you use terms like Faux News N stuff? Vile Liberals live on Slash(COCK). Al Gore should be in prison, instead of being worshiped, he has hoodwinked you so called smart people into believe in carbon credits, which is a smart way of taxing you for the air you breath.

Re:Rebublicans don't give a shit about truth (2)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#44687389)

Goldman Sachs is behind carbon trading - Article Here [wordpress.com] . Billions to be made trading a trillion dollars of carbon credits with Goldman setting themselves up to be the broker. Millions and millions in lobbying and campaign contributions. Gore is a tool, but Goldman is truly evil.

Slashdot posts bullshit as fact, real news at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686045)

What, no retraction on posting a piece of speculative fiction about Google's self-driving cars as if it was a news article?

I should submit Onion articles to Slashdot and see what ones get through.

Re:Slashdot posts bullshit as fact, real news at 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686337)

they fixed the headline within about 15 minutes on the self driving cars

Re:Slashdot posts bullshit as fact, real news at 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686503)

oh well that makes it okay then

Yawn (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#44686053)

Wake me when the National Hurricane Center expands the Saffir-Simpson scale [noaa.gov] so that it goes to 11.

640K MPH should be enough for anybody (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686433)

"I am in control here.' -- Alexander Haig stages a coup, 3/30/1981

Two peas in a pod (2, Interesting)

jaymzter (452402) | about a year ago | (#44686067)

The press nowadays is more a lapdog of the establishment than a watchdog. What about Gore's ridiculous claim that his propaganda film predicted the effects of Hurricane Sandy, or that hurricanes are more extreme now? Klein let those statements pass without a contrary word. Besides, no matter how you spin what he said, it's factually ignorant. There is no top end to a Cat 5 hurricane classification, so no need for a higher rating.

Re:Two peas in a pod (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44686163)

There is no top end to a Cat 5 hurricane classification, so no need for a higher rating.

This first part of that statement is factually true; the second part is your opinion. If hurricanes start becoming 4x as powerful, the category 5 is still applicable, but less useful. What Gore said was correct: there are scientists considering adding a category 6 to differentiate amongst the strongest of hurricanes.

Re:Two peas in a pod (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44686417)

fact: NYC area used to get hit by cat 3 hurricanes every 70 years or so. the last time was 1938, the storm had 135mph winds when it made landfall over long island close to montauk.

a storm four times more powerful means 540mph winds. do you seriously think that we will have storms in the 700mph wind speed category?

some of you end of the world idiots need to read some history and get laid instead of sitting around your computers reading stupid predictions all day long

Re:Two peas in a pod (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686601)

Energy in the system or destruction will not be linear with wind speed. And that's a pretty damn good thing, or we'd be having houses falling down every time we had 50-70 mph wind gusts.

Oh, and sentences should begin with a capital letter and end in punctuation. It will help people take you a little more seriously when you're critiquing their sexual habits.

Re:Two peas in a pod (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44686641)

Actually you are being ignorant.

When talking about the current hurricane rating system, it's about amount of damage that occurs. category 5 is more then twice as damaging then a category 4, but it isn't twice the wind speed.

And if global warming doesn't stop, then yes we will have 700 MPH hurricanes. well, not humans becasue we will all be dead, the the planet could see it.

Re:Two peas in a pod (1)

Nail (1195) | about a year ago | (#44687573)

Al, is that you?

Re:Two peas in a pod (5, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about a year ago | (#44687311)

a storm four times more powerful means 540mph winds. do you seriously think that we will have storms in the 700mph wind speed category?

This is a willful misreading of the original post. "4x more powerful" is vague, of course, but by no reasonable reading would interpret it as "4x windspeeds". I read it to mean "4x as destructive". That could be a matter of an increase in as little as 10 mph. Damage to manmade structures is what we're interested in.

That by the way, is how the Saffir-Simpson scale was defined. If you look at the speeds involved, it seems to make little sense:
Cat 1: 119-153 kph
Cat 2: 154-157 kph
Cat 3: 158-208 kph
Cat 4: 209-251kph
Cat 5: 252+ kph

Herbert Saffir, who conceived of the scale for Atlantic hurricanes, was a civil engineer, and his scale was calibrated in terms of potential damage to a well-built frame house. Category 1 hurricanes have dangerous winds but pose only minor danger to a well-built frame house. Category 2 hurricanes commonly cause extensive roof and siding damage to well-built frame houses. Category 3 hurricanes commonly cause major damage to roof decking and gable ends of well-built frame houses. Category 4 hurricanes will cause loss of most of the roof structure and some side walls of well-built frame houses. Category 5 hurricanes cam be expected destroy many well-built frame homes in their path.

Now it's clear that in terms of just describing the potential effect of a hurricane on a well-built frame house, you don't need a category that goes above "complete destruction to many well-built structures". But the very success of the scale in terms of its impact on building codes means we probably should recalibrate the scale because of a change in the meaning of "well-built". But that would be confusing when comparing current to past hurricanes, so adding a category 6 representing "widespread destruction of frame structures built to modern building standards" might make sense.

If more powerful hurricanes become more common, we may also wish to have a category that represents potential catastrophic damage to reinforced concrete homes with shallow hipped roofs -- structures you'd expect to survive lower-end Cat 5 hurricanes largely intact.

Re:Two peas in a pod (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44688179)

so when are the hurricanes finally going to become more powerful? i've been hearing this for years.
the year of Katrina everyone predicted a horrific season for the next year, and it was a dud.
same with sandy last year. so far the reality is that this year is a slow hurricane year.

asia has been getting hit by typhoons with horrific death tolls as far as i can remember.

Re:Two peas in a pod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687281)

There is no top end to a Cat 5 hurricane classification, so no need for a higher rating.

This first part of that statement is factually true; the second part is your opinion. If hurricanes start becoming 4x as powerful, the category 5 is still applicable, but less useful. What Gore said was correct: there are scientists considering adding a category 6 to differentiate amongst the strongest of hurricanes.

Interesting how you let the meat of the GP post go with nary a comment.

The press nowadays is more a lapdog of the establishment than a watchdog. What about Gore's ridiculous claim that his propaganda film predicted the effects of Hurricane Sandy, or that hurricanes are more extreme now? Klein let those statements pass without a contrary word. Besides, no matter how you spin what he said, it's factually ignorant. There is no top end to a Cat 5 hurricane classification, so no need for a higher rating.

You latched on to a minor opinion while totally ignoring the real substance of the GP post.

Re:Two peas in a pod (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44687529)

You latched on to a minor opinion while totally ignoring the real substance of the GP post.

Because the poster had no argument with that part? Because the poster had no opinion at all on that part? Because the poster had no knowledge of the claims in the first place?

Or do you you require choruses of amens to almost everything before anyone can disagree with the one statement they have an issue with?

Re:Two peas in a pod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686243)

The eye of Jupiter is a category 5 hurricane. It's bigger than Earth.

Perhaps a new category isn't a bad idea.

Re:Two peas in a pod (0)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#44686497)

Size has nothing to do with hurricane category. It's based on wind speed.

Wind speed and size matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686643)

Yes, this is Al Gore, therefore NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID, HE MUST MUST ****MUST!!!!!**** BE WRONG, but could you stop being a raging moron for one whole second?

Why do you think they draw the categories where they do?

****Because of the power in the hurricane.***

And size matters.

Re:Wind speed and size matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687367)

Ugh, I take this post back. I'm on the wrong end of the menstrual cycleand am just trolling you :|

captcha: polarity

So what about YOUR ridiculous claim? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686423)

When you ridiculously claim "What about Gore's ridiculous claim that his propaganda film predicted the effects of Hurricane Sandy", where is your evidence for that?

"or that hurricanes are more extreme now?"

Uh, 2-11% increase in the top end. Pretty simple mathematics: hurricanes are powered by the condensation of moisture as it rises above the earth. And the Cassius-Clapeyron formula has been uncontroversial for a century.

PS when they say there is no top end to a Cat5, that is because they decided not to. They can absolutely decide that there needs to be a Cat 6.

Re:Two peas in a pod (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44687441)

So why don't we just remove the top end from Cat 3, and get rid of 4 and 5 entirely. After all with no top end there would be need for higher ratings, right?

I have seen some nasty Cat 5 hurricanes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687917)

Some wiring closets should apply for disaster relief.

Al Gore... (2, Funny)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about a year ago | (#44686071)

Shouldn't he be out fighting the forest fires out west spewing carbon dioxide without paying for it?

The rest of the criticism remains valid (1, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | about a year ago | (#44686081)

Namely,

Generally, Gore’s characterization of the links between global warming and hurricane intensity is a bit fast and loose. Whereas Gore tells Klein hurricanes are “stronger now” due to manmade warming, the freshly leaked United Nations climate assessment is much more equivocal. Although the assessment says hurricane activity has become more intense in the Atlantic since 1970, there is “low confidence” of a human contribution.

Avoidance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686505)

"OK, yes, it was wrong, but don't consider that, consider SOME OTHER CLAIM about it!"

The link between global warming and hurricane intensity is fine. 2-11% stronger.

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44686565)

There was a global cooling trend around the 70s, so I'm always amused at people who use that time period as a baseline for what's normal. Ditto for "climatologists" who plug in numbers from lip blown hand crafted thermometers of 1900 and then interpolate to have sample density to compare to todays digital instruments in heat islands.

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (4, Informative)

elwinc (663074) | about a year ago | (#44687227)

I, too, would be amused by folks who used the 1970s as a baseline for global warming data. So, just for the heck of it, I googled images for global warming hockey stick [google.com] and it seems most of the graphs start at the year 1000 or before. However, among the top four there is one graph that starts at 1970; [pjmedia.com] amusingly, it was created by a global warming sceptic. I suppose you can cite example an example somewhere of someone who bases their global warming theories only on the last 45 years, but it certainly isn't the mainstream.

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (2)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#44687237)

I used to have a hand-made mercury laboratory thermometer that was accurate to 0.1 degree. (In fact, fever thermometers have a nominal accuracy of 0.1 degree.) That's accurate enough to measure the difference between a weather station that was painted black or white.

Here's a graph that shows a 0.8 degree rise. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg [newscientist.com]

Are you saying that if in 1900 they had thermometers with greater accuracy, they would have only gotten a 0.7 degree rise?

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44687681)

because no one anywhere ever thought of putting thermometers anywhere else othr than cities (heat island) and no one anywhere ever realied that concrete absorbs and re-radiates a lot of energy.

nope.

not one person.

those weather monitoring stations in that NOAA spread around the country, in the middle of nowhere, on mountain tops, at rest areas (nearly every RA has one), on farms....those are all just for show. to disguise how ignorant they are. and all those individual peoples who contribute data over the years from areas with fewer monitors...those are just part of the lie too...

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44687739)

also: hand blown vs digital has jack all to do with it. accuracy to the 0.0001 degree isnt that relevant. water boils and freezes at precisely defined and well known and easily obtained temperatures (and pressures, but for the sake of simplicity since im probably the only one in this thread that actually calibrates teh damn things, we'll keep it simple).

TLDR: creating an accurate thermometer isnt difficult.

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44687889)

Sigh, another denier (not a skeptic, mind) to killfile.

Re:The rest of the criticism remains valid (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44686935)

According to a leak unfinished reports based on a link that doesn't mention hurricanes.

So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (-1, Troll)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44686113)

All I heard was Al Gore use the typical cop-out line of "some people say X" so he can put forth a position and blame it on those mythical "some people" later if it turns out that his tentative position turns out to be a bunch of B.S. (which it did).

Trust me, Al has no problems taking credit for something later if the magical "some people" turn out to be right about whatever point he is putting forward.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (0, Troll)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about a year ago | (#44686609)

Yeah, Al Gore is basically the Town Joke around Nashville, TN. During the three years I lived there, I never once heard his name mentioned in a respectful manner, and that includes on the local radio stations.

Most of the time you could get a laugh just by dropping his name into a conversation.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44686783)

Haha, that TOTALLY sounds like [insert any other location with elected representatives here].

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (-1, Offtopic)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44686837)

Looking at the mods that are done to my post is very interesting... when regular people who read the article and comments see my post, it goes up to +5 Insightful quite quickly.

Then DailyKos brigade and other paid schills show up with their accounts and promptly downmod the post in the name of their religious leaders. It's an interesting phenomenon and frankly it doesn't speak well to Slashdot's moderation system.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year ago | (#44687417)

Where can I go to get paid to work for the Daily Kos downmodding your posts?

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44687323)

Yeah, Al Gore is basically the Town Joke around Nashville, TN. During the three years I lived there, I never once heard his name mentioned in a respectful manner, and that includes on the local radio stations.

Most of the time you could get a laugh just by dropping his name into a conversation.

I'm sure that's nothing to do with jealousy [wikipedia.org] or partisan politics. It's not like his political opponents had any bias [halliburton.com] or anything.

I'm sure the political right is so clear, honest and straightforward that they'd never resort to ad hominem attacks.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44687595)

Yeah, Al Gore is basically the Town Joke around Nashville, TN. During the three years I lived there, I never once heard his name mentioned in a respectful manner, ...

I think that says more about the people around Nashville than Al Gore.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44688095)

Yeah, Al Gore is basically the Town Joke around Nashville, TN. During the three years I lived there, I never once heard his name mentioned in a respectful manner, and that includes on the local radio stations.

Most of the time you could get a laugh just by dropping his name into a conversation.

In the 2000 election, in Davidson County, which shares its boundaries with the city of Nashville, Gore received 120508 votes to Bush's 84117. (Source [american.edu] ; scroll down to get the Tennessee data set.) So I suspect your observations say a lot more about the kind of people you choose to associate with than they do about Gore or anyone else.

Re:So Al Gore is a slimy politician? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44686943)

Example? of course not.

must be said..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686137)

Ours goes to Eleven!

This name sounds familiar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686221)

Who?

I'm being totally cereal right now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686227)

He needs to keep looking for ManBearPig.

Initiative reports say (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44686233)

Gore: "I didn't say I created the Internet. I merely took the initiative in creating the Internet. Similarly I didn't say there would be a new cagegory 6 hurricane. I merely took the initiative in asking if probably scientists were gonna do that."

creating the internet (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686315)

Al Gore authored the legislation that made Darpanet public, which created the internet thus making his comment which was "I practically invented the internet" correct. A lot of people don't remember Darpanet.

Re:creating the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686547)

Might as well say that I invented the Canadarm, because I voted for the government, that authorized the agency, that hired the engineers that developed the thing.

Re:creating the internet (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44687953)

Of course he never said "I practically invented the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which in a political sense was completely true.

Sure, he wasn't writing code for the TCP/IP stack, nor does he have a single RFC to his name, but the people who were doing that work have always been very clear that Al Gore was the first and for a while only politician to really understand the value of what they were doing. After the legislation you just mentioned (called the "Gore Bill") was passed, and Gore became VP, he continued to push the Clinton administration to make the Internet more ubiquitous. He also remains the only VP with a photo-op of him putting Cat-5 cabling into a school.

So yeah, he totally did that.

Goes to six? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686321)

Mine goes to 11

oh slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686349)

I know complaining about slashdot being lame has a long tradition, but.... lately it's been lamer than usual. If slashdot was a horse, somebody would put a mercy bullet through it's head. (sorry, no car analogy). There are plenty of cool things that should appeal to the slashdot demographic (check hacker news or subreddits) and /. is full of shit like this or how to re-open your last browser window. Other stories were reported and discussed weeks ago elsewhere.

Is there a corporate mandate from Dice to suck ass? Is this some sort of passive-aggressive geek rage from the editors? Whatever, slashdot sucks. I won't miss it when Dice pulls the plug and treats it as a tax writeoff.

Re:oh slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686587)

10* Not only that but the lame complaints about people complaining about how lame slashdot is are also getting lamer.

Re:oh slashdot (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year ago | (#44686679)

for a car analogy that would be doing the old Coffee can and Thermite trick on the hood.

part of the problem with reporting now a days is they disect every single word somebody says and then try to find the absolute worst "spin" on it.

personally i would say that having N as the top of the scale is a good idea.

How else are you going to sort out wrecked a county > counties > state > states levels of hurricane??

um, yeah ... (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a year ago | (#44686393)

... nothing more definitive than some journalist saying "that doesn't offend my memory".

Re:um, yeah ... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about a year ago | (#44686511)

Missing part of reporters quote

... now pleqase return my wife and children

Other Hurricane Scales (4, Informative)

squidflakes (905524) | about a year ago | (#44686411)

The Saffir-Simpson scale is pretty antiquated for the exact reasons mentioned. Just measuring wind speed gives a very poor idea of how dangerous or destructive a storm will by, and gives no indication of relative size.

The better scale that the AMS is starting to lean toward is the Hebert-Weinzapfel scale, which has a much easier to spell name as the Hurricane Severity Index, or HSI.

With the HSI model, the speed of wind and the size of the wind field are taken in to account so a storm that is moderate intensity but very large in footprint, like Katrina, has a similar rating to a hurricane with a high intensity and very small footprint like Andrew. Both were similar in the amount of destruction they caused but Katrina was only SS Cat 3 at landfall, where Andrew was SS Cat 5.

But hey, lets just make jokes about Al Gore instead, cause Al Gore. Am I right here people?

Re:Other Hurricane Scales (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about a year ago | (#44687091)

Both were similar in the amount of destruction they caused but Katrina was only SS Cat 3 at landfall, where Andrew was SS Cat 5.

Hurricane Ike produced a similar situation a few years ago. It hit Texas as a very large Category 2, causing far more damage than one would expect from the wind speed.

Re:Other Hurricane Scales (1)

squidflakes (905524) | about a year ago | (#44687743)

Yep, I rode that storm out in Houston. It was a Cat 2 but HSI 45 while in the Gulf and low 30s at landfall. Katrina was mid-30s at landfall. Most of those points were, of course, for size.

Re:Other Hurricane Scales (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44687213)

But hey, lets just make jokes about Al Gore instead, cause Al Gore. Am I right here people?

That never happens.

I wonder how history will judge this generation of leaders.

Re: Other Hurricane Scales (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#44687507)

I'm more worried about how history judge this era of the public.

Only 6? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#44686429)

My hurricane scale goes up to 11!

Really Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686471)

A would-be retraction is being posted based on the other person's transcription of events that proves that the original statement was actually stated? What is the point of this retraction? Other than someone very powerful got very embarrassed.

After all, Gore's own staff continues to have him saying literally the line that is supposedly being retracted:

The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane ...

Even if you immediately add that "some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5," then it's just a separate thought--and process for that matter--because he has literally already said that "the scientists" are doing it at this point without correcting that idea. Arbitrary scientists and NHTSA do not have to be doing it together, which I frankly suspect is exactly what he meant; some climate scientists certainly are establishing the definition of a category six hurricane, which will be a proposal to the powers-that-be once they finalize it.

This is just bizarrely stupid that this "retraction" is deserving of a post.

So he corrected himself. Immediately. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686855)

Whereas to correct YOUR error, it takes weeks. Actually, several lifetimes, 'cos it's never been seen to have been done yet. It's always some OTHER reason why he's wrong, never a correction from you. Never a communication.

Really, a retraction because he'd corrected his error in the interview and you'd omitted the correction is YOUR ERROR. Retract it? Damnit, YES YOU DO.

***He*** did.

All you're proving by not retracting your statement is showing you less honest than Al Gore.

Man. Bear. Pig. (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year ago | (#44686569)

Next you'll be telling me that "manbearpig" wasn't really his cause. Yeesh.

Let's Not Forget ... (3, Insightful)

Psion (2244) | about a year ago | (#44686629)

Al Gore also claimed the temperature of the core of the Earth is "millions of degrees" on Conan O'Brien. [youtube.com] Unfortunately, that one went out on national television, so no one on his staff can make the claim that he'd been misquoted.

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#44686939)

Let's not forget that Al Gore makes bank off stirring things up to benefit his whole Carbon Credits scam.

It's difficult to take anyone seriously when they've built a goofy market around something and then are constantly pumping up that market with hyperbole.

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (3, Interesting)

umafuckit (2980809) | about a year ago | (#44687263)

Regardless of how seriously you choose to take Gore's comments, his central message is that humanity changing the climate in ways that will have serious negative implications for ourselves. That is not a message that is easy to dispute. Personally, I find Jared Diamond's approach to communicating these issues to be much more effective (see his book "Collapse"). Diamond is not over the top and frequently tries to be optimistic (which, oddly, makes his message even more hard-hitting). The point is that if you over-use your resources really bad things begin to happen. This has happened many times in the past without fossil fuels. Examples include: Easter Island, the Anasazi, the Maya, and the Sumerians.

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44688111)

his central message is that humanity changing the climate in ways that will have serious negative implications for ourselves

BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.

This has been claimed by fat leftist liars like Gore for decades and there is still no evidence that it is even remotely close to being true. Just this summer was very mild and rained a lot. Why dont you statist MORONS just shut the fuck up already. You'd think you MORONS would have learned your lesson when your email scam was exposed [climategate.com] . You folks are fraudsters and I for one am glad that slashdot continues to expose the liberal left for the frauds that they are.

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44687655)

Sure, and if he didn't then there would be cries of "put your money where your mouth is" to criticize him.

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687777)

I'm just curious, but is there any reason at all anybody should care about this other than because they hate Al Gore or hope somehow him saying something wrong -- even if completely unrelated -- will get people to stop believing in the science of anthropogenic climate change and join the delusional deniers?

Re:Let's Not Forget ... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44687919)

Because Al Gore.

It's the same fuckwits who screamed hysterically about Nancy Pelosi when she was Speaker. Same technique as Orwell's 2-minute Hate.

Crank it to 11 dude! (1, Funny)

kimgkimg (957949) | about a year ago | (#44686631)

"These amps are awesome! You can crank them to 11!"

Gah (1, Interesting)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a year ago | (#44686719)

Hmm, maybe if you are constantly having to engage in a lawlerly defense of your claims, then the problem might not lie outside of yourself ...

Re:Gah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687301)

Hmm, maybe if you are constantly having to engage in a lawlerly [wikipedia.org] defense of your claims, then the problem might not lie outside of yourself ...

Are you suggesting the climate debate can't be resolved in a steel cage?

Wonderful Leader (1)

b4upoo (166390) | about a year ago | (#44686763)

Thank God we have a person like Al Gore among us. His efforts to confront the problem of global warming may enable the saving of many lives. This is a man we desperately needed as president who was cheated by the corrupt slime of the right wing. And mentioning hurricanes has public value as well. Wind speed alone does not inform the people at risk to the degree they need to be informed. We also need some sort of local tag that can inform people as to other dangers from a particular storm. For example some hurricanes dump overwhelming amounts of rain and the degree to which a storm is "wet" is urgently important in some areas. Thirty miles from me we have a dyke at Lake Okeechobee and anyone near that dyke needs to know the risk as we have had spill overs in the past that killed thousands of people. I'm near the beach and simply knowing the time of high tide and whether it was to be a strong high tide combined with the time of landfall can tell people whether they need to run at any cost. So if we had a system that said wind level IV with a B rating for area 531 we could convey life saving information to millions of people. As it stands we really only hear about wind speeds.

Re:Wonderful Leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686955)

I agree! Why hasn't Al Gore been beatified yet?

How was he misquoted (re: internet)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44686779)

From the link provided by the submitter:

[Al Gore] "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That's a quote of his entire sentence, lock stock and barrel.

How are people who then say "Al Gore said he created the internet" misquoting him?

Do you know what a quote means???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687331)

Serious here.

Do you ACTUALLY know what a quote means?

It means you quote the words THEY ACTUALLY SAID.

Now look again at the words. Each one, his then yours, side by side:

[I] took the initiative in creating the internet

[Al Gore said he] created the internet.

The only two words that are the same there are "the internet".

So how, in gods good name, can the latter be QUOTING WHAT AL GORE SAID?????

Al Gore the perfect schumtz (1)

ioconnor (2581137) | about a year ago | (#44687077)

Yes, I know. I saw the misquote myself. And others. Al Gore is the perfect person to misquote because of all his shenanigans. When he puts out mind rot like "an inconvenient truth" who can blame those who misquote him on purpose? I surely can't.

Don't understand the farm chores thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687267)

I read that link as:

1. Al Gore said he spent summers in rural Tennessee on his father's farm.

2. Some people say he didn't.

I don't see anything to refute that he did. If that's supposed to be convincing source meterial of Al Gore the liar it's done a crappy shop.

More right wing arm-waving at bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44687375)

You know why you're a GOP supporter? Because you can't get past daddy's emotions. Enjoy your slid into oblivion, GOP. Right, right I know: Impeach Obama now.

Misquoted On Hexametric Hurricanes (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | about a year ago | (#44687729)

He wanted it to go to ELEVEN, not 6 :P Spinal Tap FTW!

cat6 huricanes, spot on. (2)

Fubari (196373) | about a year ago | (#44687903)

Gore seems better than most politicians to me; he is smarter than the average, or at least more well read than average. In the popular media it seems a bit like the nerdy kid that everyone enjoys picking on back in school

As for the hurricanes: consider this 2006 article from abcnews: Category 6 Hurricanes? They've Happened [go.com]
Excerpt:

In fact, say scientists, there have already been hurricanes strong enough to qualify as Category 6s. They'd define those as having sustained winds over 175 or 180 mph. A couple told me they'd measured close to 200 mph on a few occasions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?